Deuterocanonicals

[Nine_Two]

Qumran? I will find your statement very interesting. Any dogmatic statements or conclusions based upon Qumran(at one time considered to be a grand total of 4000 people according to Philo) will be interesting to evaluate.
As far as any book, I probably own it so lets hear what your conclusions are and the proof please.

The Qumran community itself may have been small but it would be rather strange for such a community to have so many texts and textual varients if the larger community did not. The NT itself seems to quote both versions of the text (remember it was written by Jews).

The book I got it from was an article, I believe the “Archeology Study Bible”, a simple search of the internet shows this tends to be the consensus, in fact the only source I can find that disagrees is the Jewish Encyclopedia.

 

[BrianH]

The Qumran community itself may have been small but it would be rather strange for such a community to have so many texts and textual varients if the larger community did not. The NT itself seems to quote both versions of the text (remember it was written by Jews).

The book I got it from was an article, I believe the “Archeology Study Bible”, a simple search of the internet shows this tends to be the consensus, in fact the only source I can find that disagrees is the Jewish Encyclopedia.

The New Testament quotes more than a MT or LXX text. There are quotes that do not match up with any existing version we are aware of. As far as textual variants, I am not sure what you are saying about that.
Come to think of it, what exactly ARE you saying, we are having a conversation about it before you have stated exactly what you believe and why.
I will say that the first thing I seem to hear you saying is that a community possessing more scrolls than they consider canonical is strange. Why is that strange? Many of the scrolls deal specifically with the community and there is no reason to indicate they would consider it inspired.

 

[Tietjen]

I did not know that people still actually believed that old story. I thought most everyone thought that was just a legend. I have five or six books on the subject and none of them think that really occured. That means we have an inspired translation? Can you imagine six scholars from the twelve tribes (thats probably the funniest part) having an exact translation?
Where did you get that information from?

Brian, I believe that it is beneath you to make light of the situation considering that Catholics are attempting to explain what they believe and why they believe it. To go back and simply say, “I have five or six books on the subject and none of them think that really occured” is irrelevant and simply does not prove your assertion that the 7 books in question were not accepted by the Hebrews prior to the Christian Era. Then to go further and espouse your belief that scholars from the 12 Tribes would not be able to agree on a translation by inserting this as “the funniest part” flies in one’s face as being down right insulting not only to the Jews but to those who know that such a thing is very possible.

The issue over the Old Testament canon has been settled by the Church. If you wish to argue the matter and prove it incorrect, then do so. It is not individual Catholics who must bend over backwards to change your opinions concerning the matter, but it is on you to prove Christ’s Church wrong. Anyone anywhere can simply say that “they have a book” that says something different. The athesist do this all the time and if it were an actual “good argument” Christianity would have to be elimenated as a possibility. Therefore, the fact that you find our arguments “funny” really doesn’t matter to us in the slightest as we find many of the Methodists beliefs to be very sad and lacking indeed. But, that is a matter for another thread(s). Take care and God bless.

 

[BrianH]

Brian, I believe that it is beneath you to make light of the situation considering that Catholics are attempting to explain what they believe and why they believe it. To go back and simply say, “I have five or six books on the subject and none of them think that really occured” is irrelevant and simply does not prove your assertion that the 7 books in question were not accepted by the Hebrews prior to the Christian Era.

Several different things here and a misrepresentation of what I said.
I did not make an assertion that the seven books were not accepted by the Hebrews.
I said

That is probably correct. However, to be fair, there is not really proof either way

There is a diffference.

Then to go further and espouse your belief that scholars from the 12 Tribes would not be able to agree on a translation by inserting this as “the funniest part” flies in one’s face as being down right insulting not only to the Jews but to those who know that such a thing is very possible.

In the history of biblical translations, and there have been several, it has never occured that people working on translating books independently had “identical” translations for all the books. That is only possible with divine intervention which makes it an inspired translation. It is based upon a legend and is not accepted by any scholars I have read. In fact, the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia that was cited calls it legendary. As far as insulting Jews, that is simply not the case either.

The issue over the Old Testament canon has been settled by the Church. If you wish to argue the matter and prove it incorrect, then do so. It is not individual Catholics who must bend over backwards to change your opinions concerning the matter, but it is on you to prove Christ’s Church wrong. Anyone anywhere can simply say that “they have a book” that says something different. The athesist do this all the time and if it were an actual “good argument” Christianity would have to be elimenated as a possibility. Therefore, the fact that you find our arguments “funny” really doesn’t matter to us in the slightest as we find many of the Methodists beliefs to be very sad and lacking indeed. But, that is a matter for another thread(s). Take care and God bless.

I am not trying to prove your canon wrong. Please show me where that occured. I am more than willing to discuss the contents of any book.
I do not believe that the Catholic Church considereds the origins of the LXX to be from 70 inspired translators. It is simply a misconception and a legend. As far as my churches veiws being sad and lacking, thats not really the issue. We are discussing Jewish history specifically.

 

[u202594]

I don’t think anyone would argue against the fact that there was not a consensus on what books completed the canon prior amongst all the Jewish sects to Christ. There are a couple things that are not in dispute which I think give weight to the Catholic argument.

During the Diaspora, Jews were not permitted to teach their children Hebrew and that the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the cannon which was accepted, at minimum, by a few sects of Judaism, specifically the Jews outside of Israel.
There is not a record showing Jews rejected the books in question until after the fall of the temple (council of Jabneh…which they also were thought to have prayed anti-Christian prayers as well) when Christianity was gaining momentum by using the Greek translation to evangelize (I believe that there were a few vs that were more specifically prophetic to Jesus being the messiah… ex. wisdom 2:12-20
[12] Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [13] He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. [14] He is become a censurer of our thoughts. [15] He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different.
[16] We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. [17] Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. [18] For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. [19] Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. [20] Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words. )
That non-Catholic Christians have no issue accepting the rest of what the Catholic Church decreed as scripture. Then for the next 1200 years it was not questioned until Martin Luther.
Martin Luther did not remove the books but just labeled them the apocrypha and moved them to the back of the Bible. And then later, most likely to save on printing costs it was completely removed.

With that being said…I have a couple of questions for the protestants here… (these are not meant to be rude or mean I am just curious)
Why specifically do you reject these books?
Is it because your denomination rejects them or is it that you have taken the time to research both sides of the argument or is it that you have only looked for fuel against them?
Regardless if you agree with the implications of this question or not, can you see why Martin Luther had to question them to line up with his teachings?

Ps… the beginning of my conversion to Catholicism was this issue… I did not want there to be legitimacy for these books when I began looking into it.

 

[SemperReformada]

Then for the next 1200 years it was not questioned until Martin Luther.

If I understand your context you are saying that no one question the canonocity of the deutero’s until Luther? If this is a correct summation of your statement then you are wrong.

From the very beginning there were questions about the canonocity of the deutero’s. From Melito of Sardis to Jerome all the way up the the council fathers at Trent there were always those that sided with Jerome against the deutero’s. Of course before Jerome we have those such as Melito that took issue with the deutero’s canonocity as well.

If I were Catholic none of this would be surprising or really matter because I would accept Trent’s dogmatic decree but for the sake of accuracy it isn’t correct to state that no one questioned the deutero’s until Luther.

 

[u202594]

i’m sorry i did generalize a bit with my statement there…i guess the picture i was trying to paint was that the Christian world accepted these books as part of the bible for at least form the councils that confirmed them till Luther (as a Catholic I believe longer)… i’m not too well read on Melito of Sardis, but i think your depiction of St. Jerome is a little bit of an exaggeration…i will concede that he was critical at times but there is just as much proof that he accepted them as scripture.

As a Catholic I am fine with accepting decrees from the church but I’m curious on the non-Catholic thinking on rejecting them… I’m familiar with a few famous critics on theses books but is that the same stance that the non-Catholics here take? Or is it that you just accept without research that they shouldn’t be in the cannon because they aren’t in the KJ version?.. is it blind faith or are you educated on your stances? (I mean no offense here… for a large part of my life I didn’t bother to question the legitimacy of these books)

 

[SemperReformada]

i’m sorry i did generalize a bit with my statement there…i guess the picture i was trying to paint was that the Christian world accepted these books as part of the bible for at least form the councils that confirmed them till Luther (as a Catholic I believe longer)… i’m not too well read on Melito of Sardis, but i think your depiction of St. Jerome is a little bit of an exaggeration…i will concede that he was critical at times but there is just as much proof that he accepted them as scripture.

While I am certainly not a Jerome expert he did include his prologues to the deuteros in the Vulgate and these prologues called into doubt the canonocity of the books. You can read more about this at newadvent.org in their article on the old testament canon.

As a Catholic I am fine with accepting decrees from the church but I’m curious on the non-Catholic thinking on rejecting them… I’m familiar with a few famous critics on theses books but is that the same stance that the non-Catholics here take? Or is it that you just accept without research that they shouldn’t be in the cannon because they aren’t in the KJ version?.. is it blind faith or are you educated on your stances? (I mean no offense here… for a large part of my life I didn’t bother to question the legitimacy of these books)

No offence taken.

If I were to give the most accurate statement I could with regards to whether my stance on the deutero’s is because of blind faith or due to an educated stance I would probably say I am somewhere in the middle. I have certainly done a good bit of reading on the deutero’s including actually taking the time to read through the books at least once. Obviously one reading hardly makes me an expert. I’ve read several books on the subject including the one that Gary Michuta (Catholic apologist) wrote several years ago. So, I am at least somewhat educated on the subject.

On the other hand, at least part of the reason I reject them is because they were formally rejected by my church (Presbyterian).

 

[u202594]

just another though…can you find complete versions of the bible minus the deuterocanonicals pre-Luther? and if not when was the cannon closed?.. is it still open? at some point could you accept additional books that were written in the earliest of Christianity if a lot of large denominations accepted them? i don’t ask these questions trying to upset anybody…when i was a protestant i think i would have defended my believe that the KJ version was complete with quite a bit of passion but i think that really the only argument i could have made for the KJ would be to attack other versions. I/m not trying to attack anyone here…if there is compelling proof that i don’t know about i’m quite interested.

 

[u202594]

While I am certainly not a Jerome expert he did include his prologues to the deuteros in the Vulgate and these prologues called into doubt the canonocity of the books. You can read more about this at newadvent.org in their article on the old testament canon.

No offence taken.

If I were to give the most accurate statement I could with regards to whether my stance on the deutero’s is because of blind faith or due to an educated stance I would probably say I am somewhere in the middle. I have certainly done a good bit of reading on the deutero’s including actually taking the time to read through the books at least once. Obviously one reading hardly makes me an expert. I’ve read several books on the subject including the one that Gary Michuta (Catholic apologist) wrote several years ago. So, I am at least somewhat educated on the subject.

On the other hand, at least part of the reason I reject them is because they were formally rejected by my church (Presbyterian).

thx for the honesty… i usually find on the fourms that people get quite defensive when their education on a topic is questioned…i know i don’t have near the knowledge base that many people have here…

if you believe the Presbyterian Church to be the true church of Christ, i certianly can’t knock you for following their teachings

 

[u202594]

this information can be found independently but to save all of us some time… i think this guy showed quite convincingly that St. Jerome accepted the deuterocanonicals as scripture

matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html

i didn’t check all his sources but i did check a few and they were accurate… but again i admit that he was at time critical of the books

there are some debates he has on his site with a few non-catholic scholars that are quite educational as well

 

[SemperReformada]

thx for the honesty… i usually find on the fourms that people get quite defensive when their education on a topic is questioned…i know i don’t have near the knowledge base that many people have here…

It seems that most topics could take a lifetime of study and then you may only be scatching the surface.

if you believe the Presbyterian Church to be the true church of Christ, i certianly can’t knock you for following their teachings

That is an interesting statement…“if you believe the Presbyterian Church to be the true church of Christ…”. I’m not sure I would phrase it that way.

I don’t think my church is infallible nor do I think other churches fall out of the realm if Christianity.

Anyway, thanks for your response.

 

[Rightlydivide]

this information can be found independently but to save all of us some time… i think this guy showed quite convincingly that St. Jerome accepted the deuterocanonicals as scripture

matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html

i didn’t check all his sources but i did check a few and they were accurate… but again i admit that he was at time critical of the books

there are some debates he has on his site with a few non-catholic scholars that are quite educational as well

This is a response to the link
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

 

[u202594]

This is a response to the link
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

thx for the response!..looks kind of interesting but i have to admitt that skimming through it some of these arguments seem rather weak and at best not well thought out

ex… he quotes Jerome as saying “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church”

then his explination of that statement"According to Jerome, these books are ecclesiastical, capable of spiritual teaching, but cannot be used for supporting church doctrine. This begs the question: Since when is known Scripture not to be used for supporting doctrine? Even Scripture itself attests:"

then 2 timothy 3:16-17 as “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).”

so he is going to prove that St. Jerome did not accept the books as scripture by saying that his quote does not follow scripture?..thx again!

 

[u202594]

This is a response to the link
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

Hey Rightlydivide, did you read this article?

the arguements are not only weak but inaccuate… "In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He “followed the judgment of the churches.”

Shea not only claims that Jerome accepted them, but that he “strenuously” defended them. A word used to intrigue the reader, but there is no evidence that he defended them, let alone “strenuously.” Furthermore, from the citation above, he states that Jerome followed the “judgment of the churches”, which Shea translates as the synods of Hippo and Carthage, but he is mistaken. Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:"

the problem with this is there was more than one council of carthage and the council that was about the cannon was in 397

 

[u202594]

It seems that most topics could take a lifetime of study and then you may only be scatching the surface.

That is an interesting statement…“if you believe the Presbyterian Church to be the true church of Christ…”. I’m not sure I would phrase it that way.

I don’t think my church is infallible nor do I think other churches fall out of the realm if Christianity.

Anyway, thanks for your response.

after re-reading what i wrote i guess it could sould like a baiting question about authority…that wasn’t my intention… just saying i can accept trusting your church’s teaching as a reason

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hey Rightlydivide, did you read this article?

the arguements are not only weak but inaccuate… "In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He “followed the judgment of the churches.”

Shea not only claims that Jerome accepted them, but that he “strenuously” defended them. A word used to intrigue the reader, but there is no evidence that he defended them, let alone “strenuously.” Furthermore, from the citation above, he states that Jerome followed the “judgment of the churches”, which Shea translates as the synods of Hippo and Carthage, but he is mistaken. Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:"

the problem with this is there was more than one council of carthage and the council that was about the cannon was in 397

Mark Shea responded to the article I originally cited
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/response-from-catholic-apologist-mark.html

 

[JonNC]

just another though…can you find complete versions of the bible minus the deuterocanonicals pre-Luther? and if not when was the cannon closed?.. is it still open? at some point could you accept additional books that were written in the earliest of Christianity if a lot of large denominations accepted them? i don’t ask these questions trying to upset anybody…when i was a protestant i think i would have defended my believe that the KJ version was complete with quite a bit of passion but i think that really the only argument i could have made for the KJ would be to attack other versions. I/m not trying to attack anyone here…if there is compelling proof that i don’t know about i’m quite interested.

Actually, you have to wait until well after Luther to find a Bible without the D-C’s, as Luther not only translated and included them in his 1534 Bible, he also included Prayer of Manasses. What he did do, representing the centuries-long dispute regarding them, was to separate them out into a section between the OT and NT.

And, you might be aware that the 1611 KJV also included them.

Jon

 

[u202594]

This is a response to the link
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

Hi Rightlydivide… the link i sent was actually responding directly to the first link you posted… beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

as for the second link… I appreciate that this Mark Shea guy admitted that his argument that Jerome staunchly defended these books as scripture was not accurate; however, the link from the apologist that calls himself matt1618 i provided was argued that regardless of whether Jerome was critical of these books he accepted them as scripture.

you may have caught that but the way you posted the links seemed like you didn’t.

 

[u202594]

Actually, you have to wait until well after Luther to find a Bible without the D-C’s, as Luther not only translated and included them in his 1534 Bible, he also included Prayer of Manasses. What he did do, representing the centuries-long dispute regarding them, was to separate them out into a section between the OT and NT.

And, you might be aware that the 1611 KJV also included them.

Jon

I know it wasn’t Luther that removed them…just repositioned them… I know if you look around you can still find KJV’s with the “apocrypha” included…does the Lutheran church use a version including them?