Deuterocanonical Problems?

[CutlerB]

Hello there everybody,

as this is my first public post here, I would like to shortly introduce you to my situation. (As short as I could possibly make it)

I am an Anglican and I feel that Rome is “calling” me. I only discovered my interest in religion a few years ago, when I met a good friend of mine who is a Jehovah’s Witness. Along the road we got into a lot of discussions which brought me to investigate my faith. However, that was more on the Protestant side. Since then, my interest has broadened and I took a look at Catholic theology. That was only about half a year ago and since then I gave really changed a lot of my belief. It has taken me so far as to consider conversion to the Catholic Church, but before I take that step I want to feel sure about what I am doing. That’s the reason I am consulting resources (by the way I am grateful for any good material you may have to offer) to clear up the differences between Catholic and Protestant (Anglican) theology. Currently, I’m looking at the Deuterocanonical Books of Scripture.

I took some time and looked for alleged problems with the Deuterocanonicals. Some of them I have been able to clear up, but some remain. These points come, to be honest, from a Jehovah’s Witness publication, as I think they sometimes do have some good, or a least interesting, points. Here goes.

1. The publication states there are no original manuscripts from the Septuagint, and therefore we cannot know whether the books in question were really part of it.
2. It is said that the Council of Trent (which they also state added the books, but i know it didn’t) rejected some books that were accepted by the Council of Carthage, namely Manasseh and 1, 2 Esdras. (I get confused with what is meant by the latter two)
3. In the additions to Esther, Mordechai is said to have been with the prisoners who Nebuchadnezzar took in 617 BC (I’m not sure whether they are assuming their 607 Fall of Jerusalem date) and that he was an important man at the king’s court 100 years later in the second year of Artaxerxes (Ahasverus). It is further stated that it was in contradiction to the “canonical” part of Esther.
4. Romans 5: 12-19 vs. Sirach 25:19,24. Who brought Sin to mankind, Adam or Eve?
5. Baruch 1:1-2 tells us it was written in Babylonia, five years after the fall of Jerusalem. This however seems to contradict Jeremiah 43:5-7, where Baruch is taken to Egypt.
6. 2 Maccabees: Jeremiah takes the Ark, the Altar of incense and the Tabernacle to a cave. (2 Macc 2:1-16) The publication flatly states, without any proof, that the Tabernacle had been replaced by the Temple 420 years earlier.

I hope you can help me with these six questions. By the way, I am going to Rome in June with some friends, including the one mentioned above, and I am definitely looking forward to attending Mass at St Peter’s!

Thank you in advance!

 

[coco2]

I am questioning what any of these examples have to do with Anglican or Catholic theology. What is it about these passages contradict anything in either church’s theology?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Regarding the supposed contradictions between different parts of the Bible, they are of the same sort as all the other alleged contradictions in the Bible. Someone who accepted Matthew but not John might make similar arguments to support their claim. Ultimately, close investigation usually can reveal one way or another of reconciling the two texts without denying either’s inspired nature.

Regarding historical arguments, I will mention that I did not think the Council of Carthage recognized Manasseh or 1 and 2 Esdras and a quick internet search seems to be confirming that (which would cut into the whole credibility of this publication), but even if it were true, the Council of Carthage was a local council while the Council of Trent was an Ecumenical Council. The difference is analogous to the difference between teaching of a single bishop and the teaching of a Pope. It’s the teaching of Trent that is definitive on this matter, not Carthage.

[Edit: The Council of Carthage did declare canonical the “two books of Ezra”. This means Ezra and Nehemiah, not the books alternately known as 1 and 2 Esdras or, where those names are given to Ezra and Nehemiah, 3 and 4 Esdras. Perhaps an accidental or deliberate misidentification of the “two books of Ezra” is to blame for that claim. Still don’t know what if any basis there is to claim Carthage canonized Manasseh.]

I don’t have the expertise to address the question of the “original” version of the Septuagint, whatever that means.

Let me ask though, how likely is it that God intended Christians to have to wade through all this sort of historical material just to find out what books are inspired Scripture? And don’t forget, daunting as the task is today, how much harder would it have been for average Christians in past centuries? In practice we need an authority to tell us which books are canonical. Who is your authority for that going to be? For what reason will you accept that they have the authority to tell you which books are inspired by God?

 

[777rak]

I believe this might help. The following is from an e-mail I conversed with Father Eric Forbes from Guam about the apocrypha or "extra books.

Here is one important point : the New Testament, specificlaly the Gospels, quote from the Septuagint! So, if the Septuagint was good enough for the Gospel writers, it’s good enough for us.

Also, a very important question : WHO has the authority to decide what books go into the Bible?

Protestants say that the answer for everything is in the Bible. If it’s not in the Bible, we cannot believe it. But the Bible does not tell us what books go into the Bible. Think about it. So, WHO has God’s permission to be the authority to decide which books go in, and which books stay out of the Bible?

Before Christ, the Jews had different ideas about what books are biblical and which are not. The Sadducees, for example, only accepted the Torah or Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers and Leviticus). Yet the Sadducees were considered bona fide Jews just like the others. The Greek-speaking Jews had the Septuagint. The Jews in Palestine had their own list of books. The Catholic Church decided later what Old Testament books were to be considered scripture, as well as what New Testament books. Did the Catholic Church have this authority from God to make that decision? If not, who then did?

 

[Todd_Easton]

1. 2 Maccabees: Jeremiah takes the Ark, the Altar of incense and the Tabernacle to a cave. (2 Macc 2:1-16) The publication flatly states, without any proof, that the Tabernacle had been replaced by the Temple 420 years earlier.

Although it is true that the portable Tabernacle was no longer *needed *when the fixed Temple was built, I am unaware of any Bible verse that says Solomon or anyone else subsequently destroyed the portable Tabernacle once the Temple was built. Rather, I think it much more likely that once the Temple was built such a sacred and historically significant object as the portable Tabernacle was reverently retired and stowed away in a safe place.

 

[De_Maria]

Hello there everybody,

Hi!

as this is my first public post here, I would like to shortly introduce you to my situation. (As short as I could possibly make it)

I am an Anglican and I feel that Rome is “calling” me.

God be praised!

I only discovered my interest in religion a few years ago, when I met a good friend of mine who is a Jehovah’s Witness. Along the road we got into a lot of discussions which brought me to investigate my faith. However, that was more on the Protestant side. Since then, my interest has broadened and I took a look at Catholic theology. That was only about half a year ago and since then I gave really changed a lot of my belief. …
I took some time and looked for alleged problems with the Deuterocanonicals. Some of them I have been able to clear up, but some remain. These points come, to be honest, from a Jehovah’s Witness publication, as I think they sometimes do have some good, or a least interesting, points. Here goes.

1. The publication states there are no original manuscripts from the Septuagint, and therefore we cannot know whether the books in question were really part of it.

Do we have original manuscripts of any ancient manuscript? I’m pretty certain we don’t. So, if they can’t trust the Septuagint manuscripts because they aren’t originals, how can they trust any others?

1. It is said that the Council of Trent (which they also state added the books, but i know it didn’t) rejected some books that were accepted by the Council of Carthage, namely Manasseh and 1, 2 Esdras. (I get confused with what is meant by the latter two)

a. The Council of Carthage was a local council. That means the decision which it made only affected the local area. It was not a teaching for the universal Church.
b. In approximately the same period, the Church authorized the Vulgate as the official Bible.
c. It is the Vulgate which the Council of Trent confirmed without even considering any other council.
d. The Vulgate contains most of the books approved at Carthage, but not all.

1. In the additions to Esther, Mordechai is said to have been with the prisoners who Nebuchadnezzar took in 617 BC (I’m not sure whether they are assuming their 607 Fall of Jerusalem date) and that he was an important man at the king’s court 100 years later in the second year of Artaxerxes (Ahasverus). It is further stated that it was in contradiction to the “canonical” part of Esther.

I’m pretty sure that another Mordechai. But if you have some pertinent verses, we can examine them,

1. Romans 5: 12-19 vs. Sirach 25:19,24. Who brought Sin to mankind, Adam or Eve?

a. How about Romans 5:12-19 vs 1 Tim 2:14
b. They both brought sin to the world, as we can see by the fact that the Apostle St. Paul, who wrote infallibly, on one hand attributes the fault to Adam and on another to Eve.

1. Baruch 1:1-2 tells us it was written in Babylonia, five years after the fall of Jerusalem. This however seems to contradict Jeremiah 43:5-7, where Baruch is taken to Egypt.

Is it the same Baruch?
Even if it is, why can’t both of those things be true? They don’t sound mutually exclusive to me.

1. 2 Maccabees: Jeremiah takes the Ark, the Altar of incense and the Tabernacle to a cave. (2 Macc 2:1-16) The publication flatly states, without any proof, that the Tabernacle had been replaced by the Temple 420 years earlier.

Sounds to me like they need to provide proof before they can be taken seriously.

I hope you can help me with these six questions.

I hope that helped. I love to discuss Scripture, so feel free to ask me anything. I sort of neglect the Deuterocanonicals usually, so this might be a good opportunity for me to brush up.

By the way, I am going to Rome in June with some friends,

Awesome!

including the one mentioned above, and I am definitely looking forward to attending Mass at St Peter’s!

Thank you in advance!

May God continue to bless you exceedingly!

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Todd_Easton]

1. Romans 5: 12-19 vs. Sirach 25:19,24. Who brought Sin to mankind, Adam or Eve?

The Devil was the remote cause of bringing sin and death to all mankind because he tempted Eve to sin. Eve was a medial cause of bringing sin and death to all mankind because she sinned and induced Adam to sin. Adam was the immediate cause of bringing sin and death to all mankind because he was the head of the human race and he sinned.

 

[po18guy]

You would be well advised to completely and totally disregard any and all Jehovah’s Witnesses material. It has zero authority behind it. The JW organization has a 100% record of failed propheccies. 100%. They have never prophesied a single thing that has actually happened. They are to be pitied and prayed for. Their material is completely distorted and is based on ignorance of Catholicism. The Jehovah’s Witnesses that I have spoken with all seem very sincere, but all are all horribly mislead, and have been trained only in specific tactics to use against other faiths. Once they are off of the path that they have been taught, they are lost. Following a false prophet, they deny our Soveriegn Lord, as Peter correctly prophesied in 2 Peter 2:1.

 

[CutlerB]

I am questioning what any of these examples have to do with Anglican or Catholic theology. What is it about these passages contradict anything in either church’s theology?

I am looking at them, because their inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by the Catholic Church is a difference to the Anglican canon. If they were to contain any irreconcilable error, they could not possibly be Scripture. That’s the significance it has to me.

Let me ask though, how likely is it that God intended Christians to have to wade through all this sort of historical material just to find out what books are inspired Scripture? And don’t forget, daunting as the task is today, how much harder would it have been for average Christians in past centuries? In practice we need an authority to tell us which books are canonical. Who is your authority for that going to be? For what reason will you accept that they have the authority to tell you which books are inspired by God?

Well, about the authority thing I’m not quite sure either yet, but I have looked at it. There really is a lot I need to check up on and that’s part of it. At the current stage, I recognise there is an authority. If the Catholic Church says the Deuterocanon is part of the Bible, then I trust there is truth to that, however I’m the kind of person that likes to see some kind of proof. I don’t like to base my trust on some simple claims without any further points.

a. The Council of Carthage was a local council. That means the decision which it made only affected the local area. It was not a teaching for the universal Church.
b. In approximately the same period, the Church authorized the Vulgate as the official Bible.
c. It is the Vulgate which the Council of Trent confirmed without even considering any other council.
d. The Vulgate contains most of the books approved at Carthage, but not all.

a. OK, but how come it is cited as proof that the Church accepted it into the Canon in the fourth century, if it was only a local council?

d. Which would it not have included?

I’m pretty sure that another Mordechai. But if you have some pertinent verses, we can examine them,

I will see if I can find them and then I’ll get back to you. The publication did not always give verses, that’s why I’ll have to look.

Is it the same Baruch?
Even if it is, why can’t both of those things be true? They don’t sound mutually exclusive to me.

I could not tell you if it is the same, although it is possible as the Book of Baruch (as far as I know) has something to do with Jeremiah, correct me if I’m wrong. As for the exclusion: Well, if one is said to go to Egypt with the others, how can one be in Babylonia?

Thank you for your good wishes!

You would be well advised to completely and totally disregard any and all Jehovah’s Witnesses material. It has zero authority behind it. The JW organization has a 100% record of failed propheccies. 100%. They have never prophesied a single thing that has actually happened. They are to be pitied and prayed for. Their material is completely distorted and is based on ignorance of Catholicism. The Jehovah’s Witnesses that I have spoken with all seem very sincere, but all are all horribly mislead, and have been trained only in specific tactics to use against other faiths. Once they are off of the path that they have been taught, they are lost. Following a false prophet, they deny our Soveriegn Lord, as Peter correctly prophesied in 2 Peter 2:1.

Yes, I know. I don’t give any particular trust to them at all, however, if I am examining some topic and want to get a counter-side, I try to find some arguments. And maybe they indeed offer, at least some, fairly good ones.

Thanks to all so far!

 

[po18guy]

Well, about the authority thing I’m not quite sure either yet, but I have looked at it. There really is a lot I need to check up on and that’s part of it. At the current stage, I recognise there is an authority. If the Catholic Church says the Deuterocanon is part of the Bible, then I trust there is truth to that, however I’m the kind of person that likes to see some kind of proof. I don’t like to base my trust on some simple claims without any further points…Yes, I know. I don’t give any particular trust to them at all, however, if I am examining some topic and want to get a counter-side, I try to find some arguments. And maybe they indeed offer, at least some, fairly good ones.

Thanks to all so far!

You will note that the word “authority” comes up a lot. This is crucial: if someone has no authority to either include or exclude books from the bible, then whatever they say is essentially meaningless. Not one of the reformers had any such authority, and certainly no one since has had it.

If you are looking at Catholicism in general, a wonderful book to use as a resource is Catholicism for Dummies. It is written by two very well educated priests. It will answer many of your questions - particularly regarding why the Catholic Church relies on more than the bible.

Another book to consider is Gary Michuta’s Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger. It will answer most if not all of your questions about the deuterocanonical books.

Welcome here, by the way! Which part of Germany are you living in?

 

[CutlerB]

Welcome here, by the way! Which part of Germany are you living in?

Thank you, I will take a look at those books! I’m from Schleswig-Holstein, up north of Hamburg.

PS: I just checked, but I don’t seem to be able to get them here. Amazon US will not ship to Europe and I can’t find them one Amazon here.

 

[po18guy]

Thank you, I will take a look at those books! I’m from Schleswig-Holstein, up north of Hamburg.

PS: I just checked, but I don’t seem to be able to get them here. Amazon US will not ship to Europe and I can’t find them one Amazon here.

Here is a link to Amazon.de that lists the book. I cannot find the other book on Amazon or eBay in Germany

 

[CutlerB]

Here is a link to Amazon.de that lists the book. I cannot find the other book on Amazon or eBay in Germany

Ah, great! Thanks!

 

[De_Maria]

a. OK, but how come it is cited as proof that the Church accepted it into the Canon in the fourth century, if it was only a local council?

I don’t know. But have you read the decision by the Council of Trent. It doesn’t even mention Carthage. It only mentions and approves the Vulgate which was completed by St. Jerome in 382 and has been the official Catholic Bible ever since.

d. Which would it not have included?

1 Esdras in Carthage is different from 1 Esdras in the Vulgate.

I will see if I can find them and then I’ll get back to you. The publication did not always give verses, that’s why I’ll have to look.

Ok.

[quoteI could not tell you if it is the same, although it is possible as the Book of Baruch (as far as I know) has something to do with Jeremiah, correct me if I’m wrong. As for the exclusion: Well, if one is said to go to Egypt with the others, how can one be in Babylonia?
[/quote]

How long is one person’s life?
Can a person travel to one country and write a book and then go to another country?

Thank you for your good wishes!

You’re welcome.

Yes, I know. I don’t give any particular trust to them at all, however, if I am examining some topic and want to get a counter-side, I try to find some arguments. And maybe they indeed offer, at least some, fairly good ones.

Thanks to all so far!

You’re welcome.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[CutlerB]

I don’t know. But have you read the decision by the Council of Trent. It doesn’t even mention Carthage. It only mentions and approves the Vulgate which was completed by St. Jerome in 382 and has been the official Catholic Bible ever since.

No, I haven’t. Do you know where I could find that document?

How long is one person’s life?
Can a person travel to one country and write a book and then go to another country?

Good point, I’d forgotten that.

 

[po18guy]

One thing to bear in mind is that the Council of Trent was called mainly as a response to the heresy of protestantism. There is no way to sugar-coat this. Just as the first Church council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) was called to resolve the issue of circumcision being falsely taught by certain early Jewish converts, so also was Trent called to answer the very rejection of the Church itself - by some of her own members.

Thus, Trent has become a sticking point for those who remain separated from the Catohlic Church. It has been magnified, distoreted, lied about and otherwise maligned until what is presented today seems more akin to the Third Reich making dictatorial judgments. Zero truth in that. Those were depsearate times for the Bodty of Christ, with a major fracture appearing. The intensity of the Council’s efforts is justified in light of the 495 subsequent years of division in the Body of Christ.

 

[De_Maria]

No, I haven’t. Do you know where I could find that document?

Right here.

 

[Nicea325]

Hello there everybody,

as this is my first public post here, I would like to shortly introduce you to my situation. (As short as I could possibly make it)

I am an Anglican and I feel that Rome is “calling” me. I only discovered my interest in religion a few years ago, when I met a good friend of mine who is a Jehovah’s Witness. Along the road we got into a lot of discussions which brought me to investigate my faith. However, that was more on the Protestant side. Since then, my interest has broadened and I took a look at Catholic theology. That was only about half a year ago and since then I gave really changed a lot of my belief. It has taken me so far as to consider conversion to the Catholic Church, but before I take that step I want to feel sure about what I am doing. That’s the reason I am consulting resources (by the way I am grateful for any good material you may have to offer) to clear up the differences between Catholic and Protestant (Anglican) theology. Currently, I’m looking at the Deuterocanonical Books of Scripture.

I took some time and looked for alleged problems with the Deuterocanonicals. Some of them I have been able to clear up, but some remain. These points come, to be honest, from a Jehovah’s Witness publication, as I think they sometimes do have some good, or a least interesting, points. Here goes.

1. The publication states there are no original manuscripts from the Septuagint, and therefore we cannot know whether the books in question were really part of it.
2. It is said that the Council of Trent (which they also state added the books, but i know it didn’t) rejected some books that were accepted by the Council of Carthage, namely Manasseh and 1, 2 Esdras. (I get confused with what is meant by the latter two)
3. In the additions to Esther, Mordechai is said to have been with the prisoners who Nebuchadnezzar took in 617 BC (I’m not sure whether they are assuming their 607 Fall of Jerusalem date) and that he was an important man at the king’s court 100 years later in the second year of Artaxerxes (Ahasverus). It is further stated that it was in contradiction to the “canonical” part of Esther.
4. Romans 5: 12-19 vs. Sirach 25:19,24. Who brought Sin to mankind, Adam or Eve?
5. Baruch 1:1-2 tells us it was written in Babylonia, five years after the fall of Jerusalem. This however seems to contradict Jeremiah 43:5-7, where Baruch is taken to Egypt.
6. 2 Maccabees: Jeremiah takes the Ark, the Altar of incense and the Tabernacle to a cave. (2 Macc 2:1-16) The publication flatly states, without any proof, that the Tabernacle had been replaced by the Temple 420 years earlier.

I hope you can help me with these six questions. By the way, I am going to Rome in June with some friends, including the one mentioned above, and I am definitely looking forward to attending Mass at St Peter’s!

Thank you in advance!

And what makes the Jehovah Witnesses believe we have the original maunscripts for ANY book in the Bible?

 

[CutlerB]

And what makes the Jehovah Witnesses believe we have the original maunscripts for ANY book in the Bible?

Well yes, while that’s true, it does not take away the fact we do not have the canon of the Septuagint manuscripts.