Deuterocanonicals

[JJ59]

Hi!

I was just reading through this Catholic Answers Tract on the Deuterocanonicals:

catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

It all seemed good, the Church Fathers in perfect harmony with the Church today, but at the Council of Rome it said “Solomon, three books”.

I good be reading it wrong, the way they’re listed isn’t too easy to read, but what are the 3 books of Solomon?

Thanks and God bless,

 

[Omyo12]

Hi!

I was just reading through this Catholic Answers Tract on the Deuterocanonicals:

catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

It all seemed good, the Church Fathers in perfect harmony with the Church today, but at the Council of Rome it said “Solomon, three books”.

I good be reading it wrong, the way they’re listed isn’t too easy to read, but what are the 3 books of Solomon?

Thanks and God bless,

of Solomon, three books**:** Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book**;** likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;

Seems to be saying:

There are three books of Solomon: they are Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticle of Canticles

Hope this helps,
God bless

 

[Kalos]

Hi jj59
I don’t want to tell you what to believe, but just be aware that Catholic tracts don’t give you both sides. Some things you might consider:

The Deuterocanonicals were never accepted by the Hebrews as scripture or as Talmud.

Catholics rejected some because of a verse (in 4th Esdras) that speaks against the concept of Purgatory.

They contain no prophecy, while the Bible is about 30% prophecy

They add no theology or anything of importance to the Bible.

They contain some tall tales like Bel and the Dragon.

Word usage is different than in the inspired text.

not all the fathers accepted them

 

[wardrandolph]

Hi jj59
I don’t want to tell you what to believe, but just be aware that Catholic tracts don’t give you both sides. Some things you might consider:

The Deuterocanonicals were never accepted by the Hebrews as scripture or as Talmud.

Catholics rejected some because of a verse (in 4th Esdras) that speaks against the concept of Purgatory.

They contain no prophecy, while the Bible is about 30% prophecy

They add no theology or anything of importance to the Bible.

They contain some tall tales like Bel and the Dragon.

Word usage is different than in the inspired text.

not all the fathers accepted them

I don’t want to hijack this thread,but this responce is easily refuted.Kalos,PM me and I would be happy to share the prophesies,quotes etc.In the N.T.Rocky.

 

[Omyo12]

Hi jj59
I don’t want to tell you what to believe, but just be aware that Catholic tracts don’t give you both sides. Some things you might consider:

The Deuterocanonicals were never accepted by the Hebrews as scripture or as Talmud.

Of course they were not part of the Talmud specially since the Mishnah was written in the 3rd century and the Gemara in the 5th century. By THEN all the Jewish people people did reject the Deuterocanon…

Catholics rejected some because of a verse (in 4th Esdras) that speaks against the concept of Purgatory.

If you’re referring to 2 Esdras (aka 4 Esdras) 7:82- “The second way, because they cannot now make a good repentance so that they may live”

Then you have no idea what purgatory is…

If you’re not though, I’m all ears!

They contain no prophecy, while the Bible is about 30% prophecy

Hopefully wardrandolph answered this sufficiently…

They add no theology or anything of importance to the Bible.

Good one…

They contain some tall tales like Bel and the Dragon.

Ok? And you got this from…?

Word usage is different than in the inspired text.

:ehh:

not all the fathers accepted them

Yes, but not all the Fathers accepted all the books of the New Testament either.
St. Irenaeus disputed what Luther later called the Antilegomena

In fact, the 27 books of NT canon were not universally accepted until the 4th century

Maybe you just pick and choose which facts to use? iono…

 

[JJ59]

Thanks so much, Omyo12, I thought I was reading it wrong.

Kalos, you said: “They contain no prophecy, while the Bible is about 30% prophecy”.

I’d like you to read this prophecy about Jesus from the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom:

“Let us lay traps for the upright man, since he annoys us and opposes our way of life, reproaches us for our sins against the Law, and accuses us of sins against our upbringing. He claims to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. We see him as a reproof to our way of thinking, the very sight of him weighs our spirits down; for his kind of life is not like other people’s, and his ways are quite different. In his opinion we are counterfeit; he avoids our ways as he would filth; he proclaims the final end of the upright as blessed and boasts of having God for his father. Let us see if what he says is true, and test him to see what sort of end he will have. For if the upright man is God’s son, God will help him and rescue him from the clutches of his enemies. Let us test him with cruelty and with torture, and thus explore this gentleness of his and put his patience to the test. Let us condemn him to a shameful death since God will rescue him – or so he claims.”
(Wisdom 2:2-20)

Sorry, but there is prophecy.

God bless,

 

[stbruderklaus]

Frankly, as a Lutheran, I’m happy to retain all the books of the Septuagint in my Bible… Luther did.

As for the differences, I do find it interesting that the Eastern Orthodox actually have a more full representation of what the Fathers held in their hands as the earliest Christian Bible… the one they used to settle the disputes of the early Councils. There are many Christological allegories and foreshadowings in the Septuagint that Jewish redactors tried to minimize after the advent of Christ… making the Greek Septuagint and Hebrew texts a good critical comparison.

I’d recommend, for any Protestant who actually remembers that the KJV of 1611 had all the books in it, as did Luther’s German Bible… buy an Orthodox Study Bible. Great translation, and great Patristic commentary.

Cheers–

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hi jj59
I don’t want to tell you what to believe, but just be aware that Catholic tracts don’t give you both sides. Some things you might consider:

The Deuterocanonicals were never accepted by the Hebrews as scripture or as Talmud.

Catholics rejected some because of a verse (in 4th Esdras) that speaks against the concept of Purgatory.

They contain no prophecy, while the Bible is about 30% prophecy

They add no theology or anything of importance to the Bible.

They contain some tall tales like Bel and the Dragon.

Word usage is different than in the inspired text.

not all the fathers accepted them

Think what you will. I have a friend who is not Catholic, but rather a Lutheran minister. My friend, Pastor Dave accept the Deutrocanonical books. I think you have read that Catholic tract with a closed mind. Now myself, an open minded person have read Catholic Tracts here on this site and have been open minded and read some Jack Chick Tracts. The Jack Chick Tracts can be easily refuted and most are radical slurs to Catholicism. I however don’t always agree with Jimmy Akin’s advise either. He is lousy apologist. He however can speak better than he writes. I still have tons of respect for Jimmy and his work though. You might want to get all the facts before the next time you start making accusations

 

[dsulpizio]

That some of the fathers did not accept the deuterocanonicals does not invalidate that the CHURCH said that they were in the canon!
That the Jews did not accept them only highlights the fact that they are in error…they are no longer guided by the Holy Spirit (which is why they are in error about the divinity of Christ!)…they no longer have authority when it comes to Scripture…only the Church does.

 

[GodSaves]

Tall tales like Bel and the Dragon? That is exactly the same argument atheists use against the Bible as a whole. The creation account, Noah’s flood, Jonah and the whale, etc have been used by unbelievers to cast doubt on scripture. Perhaps the dragon is the same creature as the Behemoth mentioned in the book of Job? Maybe it is an allegorical tale that was a type of Jewish literature of time - no less inspired than anything else in Sacred Scripture, but not meant to be taken literally when written by the inspired author. I believe either view is acceptable for a Catholic to hold unless specifically proclaimed otherwise by the Magesterium. For instance, all peoples are descended from Adam and Eve whose souls were created by God, but a Catholic is free to accept or reject the evolutionary theories of the origins of their physical bodies.

 

[juliamajor]

Hi jj59
I don’t want to tell you what to believe, but just be aware that Catholic tracts don’t give you both sides. Some things you might consider:

The Deuterocanonicals were never accepted by the Hebrews as scripture or as Talmud.

Catholics rejected some because of a verse (in 4th Esdras) that speaks against the concept of Purgatory.

They contain no prophecy, while the Bible is about 30% prophecy

They add no theology or anything of importance to the Bible.

They contain some tall tales like Bel and the Dragon.

Word usage is different than in the inspired text.

not all the fathers accepted them

The Deuteros are extremely important and give you a leg up on the NT… THe conflict between Sadducees and Pharisees, resurrection of the body- a life after death.concepts and doctrine that were of passing interest or shadowy references in OT come to fruition .Anybody of a scholarly bent should study them to see that the so called 400 years of silence were not silent at all were filled with many issues and ideas that Jesus would be dealing with. To disregard them like so much trash to me, is reprehensible and leaves a black hole in our full knowledge of Jesus’ life on earth.