Deuterocanonical books, arguments for these being inspired

[catholictiger]

Simple Question what are some of arguments for why these books should be included.

This is the apparent reasoning or one reasoning why these books are included in scripture and are considered inspired.

The simple fact that many of the Early Christians who lived in the time of Christ lived used what we call the Septuagint which includes 46 books, unlike the 39 used in the Hebrew Scripture, so by the simple fact that Most christians used 46 instead of 39 we have 46 books in the OT instead of just 39.

This probably won’t work well for argument sakes but could very well explain why we have the books we do.

So what are some of the explanations you have heard or you use to argue to non Catholics why we have 46 books instead of 39.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Well, I accept them for the same reason I accept any book or letter as being scripture. The authority given to the Catholic Church by Christ:

• Bind and loose
• Keys to the Kindgdom
• Settle disputes

Without accepting the authority of the Catholic Church I woud have no reason to accept any of the books contained in the Bible as scripture.

ETA: My question to anyone trying to establish what is scripture is: what is their authority for selection/rejection? Have they reviewed and understood the various other works which were rejected as scriptural by the Catholic Chuch and agree? If the Church has gotten the deuterocannocal wrong, perhaps they rejected works which should have been included (gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter etc.)?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Ultimately, the reasoning is the same as why Protestants accept the NT books––the Church discerned them as such. The early Church certainly quoted them as Scripture in abundance. I’d recommend picking up Gary Michuta’s book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger.

 

[Nicea325]

Simple Question what are some of arguments for why these books should be included.

This is the apparent reasoning or one reasoning why these books are included in scripture and are considered inspired.

The simple fact that many of the Early Christians who lived in the time of Christ lived used what we call the Septuagint which includes 46 books, unlike the 39 used in the Hebrew Scripture, so by the simple fact that Most christians used 46 instead of 39 we have 46 books in the OT instead of just 39.

This probably won’t work well for argument sakes but could very well explain why we have the books we do.

So what are some of the explanations you have heard or you use to argue to non Catholics why we have 46 books instead of 39.

Very simple. Because the early church used the LXX Bible,yet many Protestants will say many books were in question? Okay,then why do they accept the ones accepted by the CC and not add others which were rejected?

 

[E_Thrower_II]

Do Catholic bibles contain the Apocrypha?

 

[catholictiger]

Do Catholic bibles contain the Apocrypha?

yes 7 of them

 

[E_Thrower_II]

yes 7 of them

COOL!!

I bought a facsimile of the original 1611 King James and it has 14. But I guess they couldn’t prove those writings were inspired by God so eventually they were removed. But what I find very interesting is that in the Old Testament writings that they believed were inspired by God, they refer to other books that are not in the Bible.

For example Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher?

Who is Jasher? That book is not in the Apocrypha either.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=E Thrower II;8405105]COOL!!

I bought a facsimile of the original 1611 King James and it has 14. But I guess they couldn’t prove those writings were inspired by God so eventually they were removed. But what I find very interesting is that in the Old Testament writings that they believed were inspired by God, they refer to other books that are not in the Bible.

They started removeing them in the 1800’s as a cost saveing measure on printing.

For example Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher?

Who is Jasher? That book is not in the Apocrypha either.

Also these books should be referred to as duetro-cannonicals Not Apocrypha. Apocrypha means hidden or secrect and there is nothing in them that is either. As for the Book of Jasher from what I have been able to find this is another mistranslation in the KJV the correct would be in the Book of the Just. I can find nothing that identifies it other than the referrence in Joshua and Sammuel. Also In the New testement I think In one of St Peter’s letters it referrences the Book of Enoch. This book we do have, but is not included in the Cannon of the western Church But is includded in the Ethiopian Orthodox Cannon.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Very simple. Because the early church used the LXX Bible,yet many Protestants will say many books were in question? Okay,then why do they accept the ones accepted by the CC and not add others which were rejected?

There is a difference between Christian LXX and Jewish LXX, talk to any rabbi about it sometime.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I should point out that being in the LXX does not automatically = inspiration, though for the most part is a good indicator. See here. You see such things as the Prayer of Manasseh or 3-4 Maccabees also in there. But ultimately, the Holy Spirit’s promised guidance to the teaching authority of the Church should be our final trust for discerning such things.

 

[ziapueblo]

Great article by Mark Shea, 5 Myths about 7 Books

Pax,
ZP

 

[melekali]

Do Catholic bibles contain the Apocrypha?

No. It contains the canon and deuterocanon. The 7 books and some chapters in a couple books are not apocryphal. Apocryphal works include the Gospel of Peter and others like this.

 

[melekali]

Simple Question what are some of arguments for why these books should be included.

This is the apparent reasoning or one reasoning why these books are included in scripture and are considered inspired.

The simple fact that many of the Early Christians who lived in the time of Christ lived used what we call the Septuagint which includes 46 books, unlike the 39 used in the Hebrew Scripture, so by the simple fact that Most christians used 46 instead of 39 we have 46 books in the OT instead of just 39.

This probably won’t work well for argument sakes but could very well explain why we have the books we do.

So what are some of the explanations you have heard or you use to argue to non Catholics why we have 46 books instead of 39.

Actually, the dead sea scrolls included the entire canon and deuterocanon in HEBREW, hence the common theory that only those in Hebrew excludes the deuterocanon is an erroneous argument. Where do they think the Septuagint came from in the first place? It was translated from the Hebrew. How is it possible that the collection of writings we call the bible today does not contain at the the number of books the Catholic Church accepts if all of them were both in Hebrew and Greek?

 

[garysibio]

The simple fact that many of the Early Christians who lived in the time of Christ lived used what we call the Septuagint which includes 46 books, unlike the 39 used in the Hebrew Scripture, so by the simple fact that Most christians used 46 instead of 39 we have 46 books in the OT instead of just 39.

Be careful about using inclusion in the Septuagint as evidence of inspiration. There are a few books and an additional Psalm which are found in the LXX but are not considered to be inspired by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[garysibio]

Do Catholic bibles contain the Apocrypha?

If you are using the term apocrypha in the Protestant sense, yes. If you are using it in the Catholic sense, no. What the Catholics call the apocrypha, Protestants call the pseudopigrapha.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Simple Question what are some of arguments for why these books should be included. .

Because they always were. Because the Canon was the Canon for 1800 yrs before someone decided to take out those writings. Because every Bible, including the KJV, included them up until an American publisher after the Revolution in about 1885, took them out. (The exception was a limited printing of a Bible published by a private society in England for use amongst native tribes for evangelization.)

Removing the books and using a truncated version of Scripture is a what needs justifying, not having the original and constant Canon of Scripture.

You now, the only reason anyone, including every single Protestant who makes the claim, believes Scripture is inspired, is because the Catholic Church said so.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Actually, the dead sea scrolls included the entire canon and deuterocanon in HEBREW, hence the common theory that only those in Hebrew excludes the deuterocanon is an erroneous argument. Where do they think the Septuagint came from in the first place? It was translated from the Hebrew. How is it possible that the collection of writings we call the bible today does not contain at the the number of books the Catholic Church accepts if all of them were both in Hebrew and Greek?

Actually, part of this is untrue. The Dead Sea Scrolls include fragments from Sirach, Tobit and Baruch, but not the other Deuterocanonical books. No fragments of Esther (either proto- or deuterocanonical) were found at Qumran.

I can’t think of anyone who thinks II Maccabees was written in Hebrew.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Actually, part of this is untrue. The Dead Sea Scrolls include fragments from Sirach, Tobit and Baruch, but not the other Deuterocanonical books. No fragments of Esther (either proto- or deuterocanonical) were found at Qumran.

I can’t think of anyone who thinks II Maccabees was written in Hebrew.

And obv no NT

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Simple Question what are some of arguments for why these books should be included.

This is the apparent reasoning or one reasoning why these books are included in scripture and are considered inspired.

The simple fact that many of the Early Christians who lived in the time of Christ lived used what we call the Septuagint which includes 46 books, unlike the 39 used in the Hebrew Scripture, so by the simple fact that Most christians used 46 instead of 39 we have 46 books in the OT instead of just 39.

This probably won’t work well for argument sakes but could very well explain why we have the books we do.

So what are some of the explanations you have heard or you use to argue to non Catholics why we have 46 books instead of 39.

See my posts below:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=598733

 

[melekali]

Actually, part of this is untrue. The Dead Sea Scrolls include fragments from Sirach, Tobit and Baruch, but not the other Deuterocanonical books. No fragments of Esther (either proto- or deuterocanonical) were found at Qumran.

I can’t think of anyone who thinks II Maccabees was written in Hebrew.

Thanks. I wasn’t aware of that.