Deuterocanon Round Table Discussion

[JonNC]

JonNC:

They had and expressed their opinions because they were allowed to.
Until Trent, all Catholics were allowed to.

I am sorry but you are wrong. As I said you can say it all you want but it doesn’t make it true.

Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384):

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here:

I won’t list them but they are the same books in the Catholic OT.

I will be muting our conversation now.

Thank you.

You can mute, but you have your history wrong.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

The Catholic Church held consistently to the 73 books, but allowed opinions.

There is a difference between holding a personal opinion about something and following what the Church holds to. The Church had the 73 book canon from the 4th century. It’s easy to see. And the Church’s liturgy has been from those 73 books for the life of the Church. The Liturgy is a massive role in what Scriptures are canonical or not. The life of the Church has been through the 73 book canon. And anyone who had “personal” opinion on things, like St. Jerome, had to submit and follow the Church. I know some Catholics who think the Shepherd of Hermas should be canonical (or at at least included in the Scripture after the text, as well St. Clement’s epistle), but they know the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and they follow the Church’s stance.
Lastly, just because the Church didn’t make a Church-wide proclamation about the canon like at Trent, doesn’t necessarily meant they allowed separate opinions. There is no council saying “we allow opinions.” If anyone did doubt the canon up until Trent, the Church would deal with that locally. A priest or bishop would deal with the person and try and expel the doubt about the Scriptures especially through pulling it all back to the liturgy.

 

[JonNC]

There is a difference between holding a personal opinion about something and following what the Church holds to. The Church had the 73 book canon from the 4th century.

No argument. Well, the western Church, but yes. Carthage, Rome, Hippo.

And the Church’s liturgy has been from those 73 books for the life of the Church. The Liturgy is a massive role in what Scriptures are canonical or not. The life of the Church has been through the 73 book canon.

Agreed, and even Cajetan talks about how the term canon can apply to liturgical usage.

And anyone who had “personal” opinion on things, like St. Jerome, had to submit and follow the Church.

I don’t think there is any argument up to this point, though the larger canons were not condemned, AFAIK.

Lastly, just because the Church didn’t make a Church-wide proclamation about the canon like at Trent, doesn’t necessarily meant they allowed separate opinions. There is no council saying “we allow opinions.”

Nor did any council prohibit opinions on the canon.

If anyone did doubt the canon up until Trent, the Church would deal with that locally. A priest or bishop would deal with the person and try and expel the doubt about the Scriptures especially through pulling it all back to the liturgy.

There were no such actions taken against Cajetan, except for his questioning the NT antelegomena. He was a papal legate who expressed those opinions!

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

There were no such actions taken against Cajetan

As far as we know. There could have been locally a discussion with him that we don’t know of. It’s a possibility. But one thing we know is that he submitted to the Church as to them being canonical. And really what he said in your quote isn’t working for you. He admits they are considered canonical, but they are of a lesser degree than the other works. Michael Lofton makes this argument in this podcast about how the gospels are of higher importance than say the book of Numbers. And I think you would agree to that. I would take Cardinal Cajetan as merely expressing this. I may not fully agree on his order of importance, but it is no doubt he considered them canonical

 

[JonNC]

As far as we know. There could have been locally a discussion with him that we don’t know of. It’s a possibility. But one thing we know is that he submitted to the Church as to them being canonical. And really what he said in your quote isn’t working for you.

Working for me? It isn’t a matter of working for me. I’m of the opinion that he was right, that they could be very properly be considered canonical in that sense. In fact, Lutherans have historically used the that way, as well in hymnody. Anglicans regularly use them that way, too.

He admits they are considered canonical, but they are of a lesser degree than the other works.

Exactly. That is an excellent way to look at the 7 DC’s. American Lutherans have missed out so dramatically in not using them, as was the case before they shifted to English Bibles in the early 20th century.

Michael Lofton makes this argument in this podcast about how the gospels are of higher importance than say the book of Numbers. And I think you would agree to that. I would take Cardinal Cajetan as merely expressing this. I may not fully agree on his order of importance, but it is no doubt he considered them canonical

I do, and in the sense he meant canonical, I agree.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Perfect! So you agree with the Catholic position that the DC are canonical and inspired.

 

[JonNC]

Perfect! So you agree with the Catholic position that the DC are canonical and inspired.

I think they can be canonical. I also think they need to be viewed and used with an eye on their reputation throughout Church history, as well as authorship.
I believe that the decision by communions/ traditions/ denominations to reject and ignore them is detrimental to the scriptural knowledge of the faithful. I actually feel the same way about the Prayer of Manasseh.
I certainly do not believe Rome “added” books. That is an accusation that lacks historical accuracy.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I certainly do not believe Rome “added” books. That is an accusation that lacks historical accuracy.

Agreed. God bless

 

[RaisedCatholic]

My “yes” was to this question -

Do you think Jesus would build a church and not tell them what the complete Biblical canon was, and they would not be certain what the boundaries were? Would they not pass down to the church what the Biblical boundaries were?

Then how can you be certain what it is, if you believe the early church didn’t know what it was? And is this just your opinion, or do you have any reliable concrete historical evidence that the first century church didn’t know what the OT canon was? If you do, I’d like to see it.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I would also add that accepting the deuterocanon does not exclude a group from being Protestant.

By “espousing” this means accepting them as God-breathed Scripture. I have never heard of even a single Protestant who has ever accepted them as being inspired, even as far back as the Reformation.

The protest was against civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer.

The protest was also against Rome’s abuse of indulgences, which evolved into protesting the “sole” authority of the church (sola ecclesia) to determine what “official” Christian doctrine, dogma, & tradition was & wasn’t, as well as what Scripture was including how to interpret it.

It also included a smaller NT canon.

The issue of the canon is not that some tradition added of removed books.

Although Luther initially questioned NT books like James, he ended up including all 27 books in his German translation. So did the other Reformers accept them all in theirs. So, the Reformation didn’t include a “smaller NT canon.” And, yes, they believed Rome had added books to the OT canon early on, because: 1) the Jews of antiquity never accepted the deuteros; and 2) none of them could be found in the Targums (early 1st century BC to 1st century AD paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible).

Luther’s translation had/has 74 books.

No, it didn’t. It only included 66 inspired books. He included the deuteros in a separate uninspired addendum in-between the OT & NT, but he did not accept it as God-breathed.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

My “yes” was to this question -

Do you think Jesus would build a church and not tell them what the complete Biblical canon was, and they would not be certain what the boundaries were? Would they not pass down to the church what the Biblical boundaries were?

Then how can you be certain what it is, if you believe the early church didn’t know what it was? And is this just your opinion, or do you have any reliable concrete historical evidence that the first century church didn’t know what the OT canon was? If you do, I’d like to see it.

Just because the early church didnt know what the canon was does not mean the church didnt come to know what it was later. Jesus told them “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.” Why would we not believe this? Why would we NEED the written word to continue on. If the need was there then why did the apostles that wrote them wait so long to write them?

I thought the points made in the roundtable discussion about the OT being unknown was pretty solid. The fact that the 3 main Jewish sects all had different “canons” is the result, but as someone in the discussion pointed out there was no Jewish “canon” until much later. I dont have this proof handy but it was in the discussion.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

By “espousing” this means accepting them as God-breathed Scripture. I have never heard of even a single Protestant who has ever accepted them as being inspired, even as far back as the Reformation.

Are Anglicans Protestant, because some Anglicans do.
How about Old Catholics?
The problem remains how the term Protestant is used.

The protest was also against Rome’s abuse of indulgences,

No, it wasn’t. The term “Protestant” was the result of the formal protest at Speyer in 1529.

Although Luther initially questioned NT books like James, he ended up including all 27 books in his German translation. So did the other Reformers accept them all in theirs. So, the Reformation didn’t include a “smaller NT canon.”

I was speaking of some writers in the early Church who had a smaller NT. Luther’s view of the Anteligomena was formed by the history of the early Church.

And, yes, they believed Rome had added books to the OT canon early on, because: 1) the Jews of antiquity never accepted the deuteros; and 2) none of them could be found in the Targums (early 1st century BC to 1st century AD paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible).

Then the Eastern sees “added” even more. And both”added” them in the third and fourth centuries. That’s a pretty early “addition” that remained in effect through the great Schism until the Reformation era questioned only by a minority of scholars and theologians.
I believe that the statement that Rome added books is as much a polemic as Luther “removed” books.

No, it didn’t. It only included 66 inspired books. He included the deuteros in a separate uninspired addendum in-between the OT & NT, but he did not accept it as God-breathed.

This is the argument Catholic apologists use against Luther.
Whether or not he believed they were God breathed or not, and whether or not he placed them in an addendum is irrelevant to the fact that he included them. He not only included them, he wrote commentaries for them.
Further, Lutherans have historically used them liturgically and in hymnody, which is an element of canonicity.

 

[adf417]

No, it didn’t. It only included 66 inspired books. He included the deuteros in a separate uninspired addendum in-between the OT & NT, but he did not accept it as God-breathed.

I dont know what Luther thought about or how he considered the extra books to be but i would like to ask the question- from what source did Luther make his translation of these extra books and what was consideration of these books in that source?

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

though somehow Christ has to reveal to a someone or to a council what is or isn’t Scripture and how to interpret said Scripture.

Is that your opinion, or do you have any Scriptural evidence for that? And if so, which council, since not even the 4th century councils agreed with each other on the canon?

Isn’t the smaller list included in the larger list?, so he didn’t say he didn’t accept the smaller list but didn’t accept only the smaller list.

It is, but he also conceded that you can find the smaller list in early lists in the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th century, but that the deuteros WITH them cannot be found until the 4th century, and then not consistently.

Catholic catechisms, Catholic councils, documents, dogma, doctrine, Holy Tradition, etc…

Again, which ones, since you don’t have a “catechism, council, document, dogma, doctrine, Holy Tradition” that says what the canon is until at least the 4th century, and then - again - not consistently. I would like to know a specific one you are thinking in mind.

IMHO the video he presented was just a short clip, and parts have been taken out of context and perhaps he didn’t explain what he was saying quite so well and what he said is being misinterpreted.

I appreciate your opinion. However, it does contain a lot of subjective words (“my opinion,” “perhaps”). If you watch the clip, what he says is that Protestants & the Pharisees shared the exact same books. Since the Pharisees were enemies of Christ, the fact they shared the same canon, this is supposed to make Protestants somehow look bad. But Jesus never condemned their canon, just their legalistic man-made theology which was not found in Scripture, but was “added” to it. Plus, Akin’s assumption was that since Jesus & the apostles used the LXX, this included the Deuteros as well. There are two problems with this assumption: 1) He is assuming that because it is found in LATER editions of the LXX, that they were in the early first century version of it. The problem is that there is no evidence of this from the NT, since it only cites Protocanonical books as Scripture, but not a single deutero; and 2) Jesus & the NT writers didn’t utilize the LXX exclusively. They occasionally used their own Greek translations, & deviated from the LXX. So, taking this all into consideration, Jimmy Akin is correct that Pharisees & Protestants shared the same OT canon (which is backed up by other Catholic & non-Catholic sources), but he made a false assumption that the LXX in the early first century contained the deuteros.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Absolutely Jesus knew and He revealed it in His time and through His Church.

there was much discussion and debate over the OT Canon and actually the NT also. As these debates and controversies happened the Church answered them and, the same as with other issues, defined the Canon.

Since Jesus knew - and revealed to the church in His time & through the church - what would be the point of “discussions & debates” over the OT canon?

I think a big part of the issue here is that protestants want the Bible to be the final authority.
Jesus didn’t come to give us a book but a Church

Again, you “think.” I appreciate the subjective opinion, but this opinion is false. This isn’t about sola scriptura. It’s about since Jesus & the apostles knew what the OT canon was & communicated it to the early church, then why would there be disagreements about its boundaries later on? How can this reconcile with “apostolic succession”? It cannot. And while Jesus didn’t “give the church a book,” the Holy Spirit did “breathe” one.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here.

Agreed, but if you look back at your previous post, you are still making a lot of assumptions that cannot be reconciled in regards to the OT canon.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Jesus told them “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.” Why would we not believe this? Why would we NEED the written word to continue on. If the need was there then why did the apostles that wrote them wait so long to write them?

When Jesus made this comment in the NT, He wasn’t talking about the OT canon. And the apostles didn’t write the OLD Testament, which is the context of this conversation & thread. Jesus clearly knew what the OT boundaries were, since it was written BEFORE He was born & because Jesus was/is God. So the idea that Jesus & the NT writers cited back to it hundreds of time - specifically calling these books “Scripture” - indicates they knew what it was, and so did the early church. Even @MagdalenaRita acknowledges this.

I thought the points made in the roundtable discussion about the OT being unknown was pretty solid. The fact that the 3 main Jewish sects all had different “canons” is the result, but as someone in the discussion pointed out there was no Jewish “canon” until much later

This wasn’t a point of disagreement, including from the former Catholic. He even acknowledged this, but it bears no weight on the fact that although there was no “Jewish canon” back then, Jesus affirmed the OT canon of the Pharisees. And it was the OT canon of the Pharisees that later Protestants embraced, which Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers & other notable Catholic apologists have verified & agreed on. So, not all Jews having the same OT boundaries in Jesus’ day is irrelevant, since Jesus affirmed the canon of a particular sect - the Pharisees.

Are Anglicans Protestant, because some Anglicans do.
How about Old Catholics?
The problem remains how the term Protestant is used.

Even if they do, then they wouldn’t be embracing the canon of the Reformers, which is where the origination of “Protestant” came from. Anyone can call themselves “Protestant,” but if they embrace a canon that is different from Protestant Reformers, then how can they call themselves Protestant? And Old Catholics? They don’t claim to be part of the Reformation.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

No, it wasn’t. The term “Protestant” was the result of the formal protest at Speyer in 1529.

You are referring to the term. I was referring to what they were protesting. Luther was/is known as the Father of the Reformation, and the birth of the Reformation was triggered by the abuses of indulgences which led to the posting of his 95 Theses.

I was speaking of some writers in the early Church who had a smaller NT.

The farther back to the time of the apostles, you notice two things: 1) The “smaller” lists tended to be more reflective of Protestant OT canon, and 2) The ECFs of the East tended to prefer this “smaller” canon, even though you can find ECFs from the West (and the East) who also embraced it, like Irenaeus, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitier, Rufinus, Gregory Naziansus & others. Luther embraced this “smaller” canon for three main reasons: 1) Jerome preferred it & stated the church in his time considered them “edifying” but not canonical & doctrines were not based on them; 2) the Jews of antiquity did not embrace them; and 3) The deuteros were not found in the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible from the 1st century BC to 1st century AD).

Then the Eastern sees “added” even more. And both”added” them in the third and fourth centuries. That’s a pretty early “addition” that remained in effect through the great Schism until the Reformation era questioned only by a minority of scholars and theologians.

The East “added” these books centuries later, long after the 4th century councils. Back then, they embraced the “smaller” canon.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I believe that the statement that Rome added books is as much a polemic as Luther “removed” books.

The early versions of the LXX did not include the deuteros. It was originally limited to the 5 books of Moses (“the Law”). By Jesus’ time, it included “the Prophets” & “the Writings” too, which can be gleaned from the NT. But the deuteros didn’t get “added” to the LXX until after the first century. This is why we find them - and even non-deuteron books, like The Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Esdras, etc, in later versions of the LXX. But Luther’s German translation included ALL of the books from the Hebrew Bible & the NT in his German translation, and included the deuteros in an uninspired addendum in-between the two. So, while it can be demonstrated from history that the deuteros were “added” to the OT, it cannot be demonstrated from history that Luther “removed” books from the OT, since the deuteros was not originally in the LXX.

Whether or not he believed they were God breathed or not, and whether or not he placed them in an addendum is irrelevant to the fact that he included them. He not only included them, he wrote commentaries for them.

It’s extremely relevant, because Scripture is either God-breathed or it’s not. There is no middle ground. Luther was treating the deuteros no different than the early church did - they treated them as edifying, but not God-breathed.

from what source did Luther make his translation of these extra books and what was consideration of these books in that source?

While he attempted to use the Hebrew for the Hebrew Bible, and the Greek for the NT, obviously he utilized the Greek for the Deuteros. Whether he used it from later versions of the LXX, or from other Greek versions Jerome utilized, he didn’t utilize the Hebrew since there were not Hebrew versions of any of the Deuteros available back then.

 

[adf417]

When Jesus made this comment in the NT, He wasn’t talking about the OT canon.

I can respect this as your opinion, but thats all.

And the apostles didn’t write the OLD Testament , which is the context of this conversation & thread

I will once again refer you to your question i was responding to above and bold the qualifier-

Do you think Jesus would build a church and not tell them what the complete Biblical canon was,

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

It’s extremely relevant, because Scripture is either God-breathed or it’s not. There is no middle ground.

Then you should be able to show us what the complete canon of scripture was for the whole church in the year say, 250 ad with no middle ground, right?

While he attempted to use the Hebrew for the Hebrew Bible, and the Greek for the NT, obviously he utilized the Greek for the Deuteros. Whether he used it from later versions of the LXX, or from other Greek versions Jerome utilized, he didn’t utilize the Hebrew since there were not Hebrew versions of any of the Deuteros available back then.

This is answering only half of the question. Please answer the rest of the question.

Peace!!!