Deuterocanonicals

[ajcstr]

I pretty much understand the history of the deuteros and probably a little less about the Septuagint, but here is the question: Pick up a bible with the Apocrypha in a separate section and you have Maccabees 3 & 4.

If these books were part of the Septuagint, why are they not part of the deuteros ? I believe the Orthodox church accepts Maccabees 3 as scripture, but I may be wrong.

 

[_L]

I know greek orthodox include 3 and 4 macchabees but russian orthodox dont include 4 as far as I know. Dont know about the other orthodox.

But according to the council of Carthage (397) only the first two macchabees books were approved as scriptural

"But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, 2 books. Macchabees, 2 books. "

Upon looking it up some of the reasons were that Macchabees 4 allegedly contradicts Macchabees 2. and there is allegedly some pagan stoic philosophy in Macchabees 4.

 

[ajpirc]

The Decree of Damasus of 381 lists all of the books found in today’s Catholic Bible. Was Pope Damasus speaking infallibly in his decree? I also hear that the official canon of Scripture (same as Damasus) wasn’t defined until Trent, so how do we prove to Protestants that the Deuterocanonicals are inspired?

 

[ajcstr]

The Decree of Damasus of 381 lists all of the books found in today’s Catholic Bible. Was Pope Damasus speaking infallibly in his decree? I also hear that the official canon of Scripture (same as Damasus) wasn’t defined until Trent, so how do we prove to Protestants that the Deuterocanonicals are inspired?

I don’t think its so much an “infallible decree” as it is the fact that if they were in every bible since the New Testament was decided, how can it be said they were added at Trent? They were in the original King James version and were never excluded until the 1800’s

 

[bogeydogg]

I don’t think its so much an “infallible decree” as it is the fact that if they were in every bible since the New Testament was decided, how can it be said they were added at Trent? They were in the original King James version and were never excluded until the 1800’s

It was the English Bible Society I think that first eliminated the deuteros but even Calvin and Luther included though as an appendix not in the list of books.

God Bless

 

[Bible_Reader]

The Decree of Damasus of 381 lists all of the books found in today’s Catholic Bible.

Unfortunately, scholarly consensus is that *Decretum Gelasianum *is a later forgery, since it purports to be dated 381 yet quotes Augustine writing in 418.

See this article for details.

 

[Crumpy]

It was the English Bible Society I think that first eliminated the deuteros but even Calvin and Luther included though as an appendix not in the list of books.

God Bless

I saw part of an episode of The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi and the author of the book Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (see amazon.com/Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger/dp/1581880103/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305089438&sr=1-1).

The author claims not to be a scholar, but has researched the question of the Deuteros, and also made the statement quoted above by bogeydogg.

The book apparently explains why the Church considers them inspired, etc.

My book budget is pretty empty right now. But, this book is on my mental wish list.

 

[x1980x]

I don’t think its so much an “infallible decree” as it is the fact that if they were in every bible since the New Testament was decided, how can it be said they were added at Trent? They were in the original King James version and were never excluded until the 1800’s

I have a “1611 Edition” KJV, and it’s Apocrypha section includes only 1 and 2 Maccabees. It also includes 1 and 2 Esdras which I believe are canonical only for Orthodox.

 

[Ignatius]

Unfortunately, scholarly consensus is that *Decretum Gelasianum *is a later forgery, since it purports to be dated 381 yet quotes Augustine writing in 418.

You are misunderstanding the issue. This is a red herring frequently used by polemicists. Also the site itself is bogus, it states that it is about the writings of Tertullian, but he lived around 160, nearly 200 years before Rome I. So it starts off in error and continues in error. Additionally it needs to be noted that It is The Catholic Church that has declared that the decretal is a forgery, However that has nothing to do with the Canon of the Council. The historicity of the 382 CE Council of Rome is well documented and no credible scholar doubts it.
Even so, several of councils, starting with Hippo and Carthage have declared the same Canon down through the mellenia.

Here are the subsequent councils reaffirming the Canon of Pope Damasus I:

**Council of Hippo (393) **
North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

**Council of Carthage (397) **
Another council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon.

**Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405) **
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.

**Second Council of Carthage (419) **
THis Council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved the same list of OT and NT canon.

The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.

Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Same complete list of OT and NT as the previous Councils.

Trent, of course, reaffirmed that Canon that The Church has held since 382 CE.

 

[Bible_Reader]

You are misunderstanding the issue.

These recitations of canon are hardly definitive, because Augustine, who lived after Damascus, omits Lamentations from his list; and Aquinas famously questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanon. While you may be able to cite a forged document in support of the current canon, these were not accepted by Doctors of the Church before Trent.

Even after Trent, the Clementine Vulgate included an appendix with additional books (1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.)

 

[bogeydogg]

These recitations of canon are hardly definitive, because Augustine, who lived after Damascus, omits Lamentations from his list; and Aquinas famously questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanon. While you may be able to cite a forged document in support of the current canon, these were not accepted by Doctors of the Church before Trent.

Even after Trent, the Clementine Vulgate included an appendix with additional books (1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.)

But Augustine absolutely did not doubt the canonicity of the deuteros which is what this thread is about. So to point out that he excluded lamentations (which I think in his Latin Bible would have been part of Baruch) is irrelevant to this discussion.

God Bless

PS The Clementine Vulgate may have included more than the deuteros but it did include the deuteros so again you can’t cite it as argument saying the Church Fathers rejected the deuteros.

 

[Bible_Reader]

**Council of Hippo (393) **
North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

**Council of Carthage (397) **
Another council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon.

I should point out that these Councils also declared Lamentations to not be the Canon.

 

[bogeydogg]

I should point out that these Councils also declared Lamentations to not be the Canon.

Yes but the canonicity of Lamentations is not the question here. I am fairly certain your Bible contains Lamentations and you never give it a second thought so why bring this up?

 

[Bible_Reader]

The Clementine Vulgate may have included more than the deuteros but it did include the deuteros so again you can’t cite it as argument saying the Church Fathers rejected the deuteros.

My point is that the canon was not settled until Trent.

Famous Church Father who rejected the Deuterocanons include Athanasius, Jerome, and Gregory the Great.

Still, there is no doubt today that Deuterocanons are Catholic Canon – it was definitely settled by Trent. But before Trent, there was great uncertainty; and our Eastern Orthodox cousins have a different Deuterocanon than we do.

 

[h2oplyer7]

Bible Reader - two things.

First, I do not know what faith you are so I do not understand your motivation here. However, if you are a protestant (by your name I would assume so) you should ask yourself the more important question. Why was the Bible not canonized until Trent (if that is what you want to believe)? If you ask that (and if you are protestant) I believe that will put your question into the right context.

Second, it is very true that the Church Fathers disagreed about what books were inspired, but the Catholic Church has never based its doctrine on the opinions of individual theologians, (except the Bishop of Rome, in very limited circumstances, when he is exercising the keys) no matter how smart or gifted they were.

Again, I do not know your motivation, so maybe I got this wrong, but it is important to remember that it is the Church that guides the flock of Christ. The BIble is the Word of God, but it is still merely a collection of books. It is the Church that gives life to those books. Without the Church, the Bible is no more special than any other “holy” book.

 

[ajcstr]

But Augustine absolutely did not doubt the canonicity of the deuteros which is what this thread is about.

I am under the understanding that Augustine is actually highly responsible for their canonicity.

 

[ajcstr]

My point is that the canon was not settled until Trent.

Famous Church Father who rejected the Deuterocanons include Athanasius, Jerome, and Gregory the Great.

Still, there is no doubt today that Deuterocanons are Catholic Canon – it was definitely settled by Trent. But before Trent, there was great uncertainty; and our Eastern Orthodox cousins have a different Deuterocanon than we do.

But weren’t they included in the Vulgate despite Jerome’s hesitation? That is still a long way off of Trent. The Vulgate was the “official” Catholic Bible for over 1000 years. This is why I don’t understand the argument that they were not added until Trent.

 

[Bible_Reader]

But weren’t they included in the Vulgate despite Jerome’s hesitation? That is still a long way off of Trent. The Vulgate was the “official” Catholic Bible for over 1000 years. This is why I don’t understand the argument that they were not added until Trent.

That is true, but the Latin Bible included many other books as well, namely 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, so mere inclusion in in the Old Latin Bible cannot be used as an argument for canonicity.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Second, it is very true that the Church Fathers disagreed about what books were inspired, but the Catholic Church has never based its doctrine on the opinions of individual theologians, (except the Bishop of Rome, in very limited circumstances, when he is exercising the keys) no matter how smart or gifted they were.

You are completely correct. My point was not to assert that the Church Fathers determined (or should determine) the canon, but rather to dispute bogeydogg’s point (“argument saying the Church Fathers rejected the deuteros.”) and Ignatius point (“several of [sic] councils, starting with Hippo and Carthage have declared the same Canon down through the mellenia [sic]”

There is absolutely no doubt about the Canon today – a point I reaffirmed in my previous comment. However, claiming that the Canon was decided in the 4th century is not historically correct.

 

[ajcstr]

That is true, but the Latin Bible included many other books as well, namely 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, so mere inclusion in in the Old Latin Bible cannot be used as an argument for canonicity.

So shouldn’t you be protesting that the Catholic Church removed books from the Bible? I’m not even sure what your argument is, that there was NO official canon until Trent?