Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[VociMike]

Jerome did not accept the deuts as being inspired, they were allowable for church reading but not for doctrine. This was the majority view up until the reformation.

If this was the majority view (it wasn’t, but just for the sake of argument), and the Protestants were just adopting the majority canon, what would possibly have possessed the Catholic Church to suddenly declare them inspired (as if the Catholic Church didn’t have enough on its plate at that time!)? Were they just determined to give the new Protestants as much ammunition as possible, even if it meant going against their own majority viewpoint? Sounds…really…implausible…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jerome did NOT recant.

Apparently you did not read my comments or did not understand them.

**Jeromes remark about the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using, **NOT the councils of Hippo or Carthage.

The Catholic apologist Mark Shea has very graciously admitted he was mistaken in asserting that Jerome accepted the deutercanonicals.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/response-from-catholic-apologist-mark.html

Jerome’s quote in context. Your quote in green.

"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion.

What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.”

Jerome did not accept the deuts as being inspired, they were allowable for church reading but not for doctrine. This was the majority view up until the reformation.

Yes, but still the Church consider them part of canon of Scripture regardless what Jerome think. You are only stating an opinion.

Do you consider Jerome opinion binding, or the Magisterium of the Church at the time?

The Magisterium through the Council in Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, declared them to be inspired period, despite the majority of view.

If you are so concern about the majority view then one ought to take a closer look at the Council of Nicea, since many of the bishops were persuaded by the doctrine of Arianism. So what makes doctrine a doctrine? It is not the views or opinions of the theologians or Church doctrines but the Bishops in union with the Pope that is consider binding.

It seem to me that you view St. Jerome as the supreme authority when it comes to Scripture, kinda odd when you consider that Jerome believed that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

 

[kaycee]

You can’t just toss out what you don’t like, kaycee. The facts are the facts,

And the facts are that Cardinal Cajetan agreed with Luther and Jerome that the deutercanonicals were not inspired but could be read in church.

Cajetan
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.

In the clearest terms, 2 levels of Canon. Inspired, “rule for confirming matter of faith” and not inspired reading for the “edification of the faithful.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

And the facts are that Cardinal Cajetan agreed with Luther and Jerome that the deutercanonicals were not inspired but could be read in church.

Cajetan
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.

In the clearest terms, 2 levels of Canon. Inspired, “rule for confirming matter of faith” and not inspired reading for the “edification of the faithful.”

The last time I check the Cardinal does not outrank the Pope, nor did he declare it to be a decree which I have showed from the quote of the Council of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.

 

[lak611]

And the facts are that Cardinal Cajetan agreed with Luther and Jerome that the deutercanonicals were not inspired but could be read in church.
Once again, that is just one man’s opinion. No Church Council ever declared his list to be the canonical list.

 

[kaycee]

If this was the majority view (it wasn’t, but just for the sake of argument), and the Protestants were just adopting the majority canon, what would possibly have possessed the Catholic Church to suddenly declare them inspired (as if the Catholic Church didn’t have enough on its plate at that time!)? Were they just determined to give the new Protestants as much ammunition as possible, even if it meant going against their own majority viewpoint? Sounds…really…implausible…

Petrius’ version of Jerome’s Vulgate also included all of Jerome’s prologues to the Old and New Testaments books and the Apocrypha. He upheld the Hebrew canon, excluding the Apocryphal books from canonical status. Metzger briefly describes the historical situation for the Western Church just prior to the Reformation:

Subsequent to Jerome’s time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon. Such a judgment, for example, was reiterated on the very eve of the Reformation by Cardinal Ximenes in the preface of the magnificent Complutensian Polyglot edition of the Bible which he edited (1514-17)…Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s opponent at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention to Jerome’s separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The majority view was Jeromes view.

 

[Mannyfit75]

First, no** Church Father is infallible**. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the** lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council**. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn’t defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ’s earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea’s definition. This doesn’t make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape — which included the deuterocanonical books — by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn’t dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.

And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, , Pope St. Damasus I, the , St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

 

[Mannyfit75]

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuter-ocanonical 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.”

Martin Luther, however,** did not**. And this brings us to the “remarkable dilemmas” I referred to at the start of this article of trusting the** Protestant Reformers’ private opinions about the deuterocanon**. The fact is, if we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming evidence from history showing that we shouldn’t (ie. the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings of councils and popes), we get much more than we bargained for.

For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament. Of James, for example, he said, “I do not regard it as the writing of an Apostle,” because he believed it “is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works” (Preface to James’ Epistle). Likewise, in other writings he underscores this rejection of James from the New Testament, calling it “an epistle full of straw . . . for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Preface to the New Testament).

But the Epistle of James wasn’t the only casualty on Luther’s hit list. He also axed from the canon Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, consigning them to a quasi-canonical status. It was only by an accident of history that these books were not expelled by Protestantism from the New Testament as Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees and the rest were expelled from the Old. In the same way, it is largely the ignorance of this sad history that drives many to reject the deuterocanonical books.

Unless, of course, we reject the myths and come to an awareness of what the canon of Scripture, including the deuterocanonical books, is really based on. The only basis we have for determining the canon of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Christ established, through whom the Scriptures came. As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of** “the judgment of the churches”** and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church’s apostolic tradition. And the judgment of the churches is rendered throughout history as it was rendered in Acts 15 by means of a council of bishops in union with St. Peter. The books we have in our Bibles were accepted according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ in council and in union with Peter.

The fact of the matter is that neither the Council of Trent nor the Council of Florence added a thing to the Old Testament canon. Rather, they simply accepted and formally ratified the ancient practice of the Apostles and early Christians by dogmatically defining a collection of Old Testament Scripture (including the deuterocanon) that had been there since before the time of Christ, used by our Lord and his apostles, inherited and assumed by the Fathers, formulated and reiterated by various councils and popes for centuries and read in the liturgy and prayer for 1500 years.

When certain people decided to snip some of this canon out in order to suit their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church’s Old Testament and always had been.

Far from adding the books to the authentic canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church simply did its best to keep people from subtracting books that belong there. That’s no myth. That’s history.

 

[kaycee]

Once again, that is just one man’s opinion. No Church Council ever declared his list to be the canonical list.

So why is Luther accused of ripping 7 books out of the bible and Cajetan and a majority of church doctors are not?

 

[VociMike]

Petrius’ version of Jerome’s Vulgate also included all of Jerome’s prologues to the Old and New Testaments books and the Apocrypha. He upheld the Hebrew canon, excluding the Apocryphal books from canonical status. Metzger briefly describes the historical situation for the Western Church just prior to the Reformation:

Subsequent to Jerome’s time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon. Such a judgment, for example, was reiterated on the very eve of the Reformation by Cardinal Ximenes in the preface of the magnificent Complutensian Polyglot edition of the Bible which he edited (1514-17)…Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s opponent at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention to Jerome’s separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The majority view was Jeromes view.

Very nice, but you didn’t answer my question.

I repeat: If this was the majority view (it wasn’t, but just for the sake of argument), and the Protestants were just adopting the majority canon, what would possibly have possessed the Catholic Church to suddenly declare them inspired (as if the Catholic Church didn’t have enough on its plate at that time!)? Were they just determined to give the new Protestants as much ammunition as possible, even if it meant going against their own majority viewpoint? Sounds…really…implausible…

 

[Mannyfit75]

So why is Luther accused of ripping 7 books out of the bible and Cajetan and a majority of church doctors are not?

Because Martin Luther wanted to do away with many of the practices of the Catholic Church. There were doctrines in those 7 OT that did not fit his theology. You can back scroll because I pointed the reason why Martin Luther rejected them. I answered that in Post # 75.

 

[kaycee]

To Kaycee,

I asked you this before, but never got an answer. Here’s a second go at it. Keep in mind, I am aware that there was controversy within the Church at various times and places that the 7 deuterocanonical OT books should not receive full canonical status. However, by the 4th century the Church did accept them as canonical.

Your assumption is demonstrably incorrect.

Metzger briefly describes the historical situation for the Western Church just prior to the Reformation:

Subsequent to Jerome’s time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon. Such a judgment, for example, was reiterated on the very eve of the Reformation by Cardinal Ximenes in the preface of the magnificent Complutensian Polyglot edition of the Bible which he edited (1514-17)…Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s opponent at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention to Jerome’s separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The majority view was Jeromes view.

I stated in a previous post that the canonicity of 7 NT books had been questioned in the early days of the Church as well, but ultimately the Church decided to give these 7 books canonical status. Do you believe in a 2-tier model of inspiration for the NT canon as well?

More specifically, should the 20 NT books (never disputed) be considered “inspired/God breathed” while the other 7 NT books (had been disputed) be considered useful for edification but never used to determine doctrine?

The books were eventually agreed upon within a relative short time. The deuts were never agreed upon even 1500 years later.

 

[lak611]

The books were eventually agreed upon within a relative short time. The deuts were never agreed upon even 1500 years later.

What is your point here?

 

[Church_Militant]

That’s funny…I have yet to see anyone of authority reject the DCs, but i do see someone of authority quoting from and referring to the DCs.

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

[Zooey]

And the facts are that Cardinal Cajetan agreed with Luther and Jerome that the deutercanonicals were not inspired but could be read in church.

Cajetan
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.

In the clearest terms, 2 levels of Canon. Inspired, “rule for confirming matter of faith” and not inspired reading for the “edification of the faithful.”

It doesn’t matter…:nope: no different than me skipping over Numbers.

The last time I check the Cardinal does not outrank the Pope, nor did he declare it to be a decree which I have showed from the quote of the Council of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.

Once again, that is just one man’s opinion. No Church Council ever declared his list to be the canonical list.

Petrius’ version of Jerome’s Vulgate also included all of Jerome’s prologues to the Old and New Testaments books and the Apocrypha. He upheld the Hebrew canon, excluding the Apocryphal books from canonical status. Metzger briefly describes the historical situation for the Western Church just prior to the Reformation:

Subsequent to Jerome’s time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon. Such a judgment, for example, was reiterated on the very eve of the Reformation by Cardinal Ximenes in the preface of the magnificent Complutensian Polyglot edition of the Bible which he edited (1514-17)…Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s opponent at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention to Jerome’s separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The majority view was Jeromes view.

It:nope: doesn’t matter. Personal opinions don’t matter. Period.

So why is Luther accused of ripping 7 books out of the bible

“It is so because Dr Luther says it is so”–Luther’shttp://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/2.gif “reasoning” for removing the books from the canon.

and Cajetan and a majority of church doctors are not?

Because they did what I do with Numbers: skim. Skip lists of names & shekels of this & temple weights of that.

I do NOT announce, “Zooey will not have the book of Numbers in the Bible!! http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/4.gifRip it out!! [literally] Print one without it!! http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/8.gifI won’t have it!!http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/8.gif I won’t have it, I say!!!”

 

[Wisdom]

Your assumption is demonstrably incorrect.

Metzger briefly describes the historical situation for the Western Church just prior to the Reformation:

Subsequent to Jerome’s time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon. Such a judgment, for example, was reiterated on the very eve of the Reformation by Cardinal Ximenes in the preface of the magnificent Complutensian Polyglot edition of the Bible which he edited (1514-17)…Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s opponent at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention to Jerome’s separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The majority view was Jeromes view.

The books were eventually agreed upon within a relative short time. The deuts were never agreed upon even 1500 years later.

Wow now this is some new thinking by protestants. the catholic church got more doctrinely purified as it went along according to you as after Jerome they finally got the old testament right? What about the catholic church going downhill doctrinally after Constantine yada yada.
According the Metzger and FF Bruce the former which you use. The canon of the disciples and the christians up till the time of Jerome was the the larger Septugient Canon.
“more than one synodical council justified and emphasized their (dueterocanoicals) use. Jeome, standing in this respect alone in the West”
Metzger

So basically you have everybody but Jerome using the larger canon the first four hundered years of Christiantiy and every council affirms these early council teachings. It is granted confusion run in during the opinions of Jerome but if I were to propose to you a catholic teaching that does not appear till the 390’s and all earlier evidence contradicts it, you would scream catholic invention circa its gradual corrupted tradtiion. But alas when we repalce the thesis with protestant evidence taht does not rear its head solidly till Jerome and the earliers evidence contradicts it you are perfectly fine with that. Oh what a tangeled web you protestants weave. Quite the double standard. The earliest chrstians from the apostles up till the time of Jerome all used the Septugient thus the opinion of catholic scholars and the better protestant ones like Bruce, JND Kelley and Metzger. And please Webster is a hack apologist and not a historian stop quoting him as a legitamate source.
The earliest sources like St Ignatius, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Clement of ROme, Clement of Alexandria, adn Cyprian, up till the time of Augustine all agree the Spetugeinet the early church used and its the canon they went with because of that.
The earliest outside church writing that we know of the Didache also uses the dueteros as scripture so the very early church used it as scripture until this opinion got corrupted by a man made catholic tradtiion started by Jerome. Hmm turn around is fair play. It is the protestants who are now using corrupted tradition at a far latter date to support their thesis how ironic? Apostolic tradition my friend does not reply on the opinion of man but on the authority of the magesterium speaking for the universal church otherwise its an opinion and maybe just maybe a corrupted tradition.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

You can’t just toss out what you don’t like, kaycee. The facts are the facts, & the facts are that the canon of Scriptures is :nope: NOT decided on the basis of whether you like the canon or not.
Heck, as I’ve said before again & again & again, I find absolutely nothing to inspire me in Leviticus or Numbers. Unlike some others (think Martin Luther), it would never, ever occur to me, that I should just slice those books out. Why?? Because they are part of the established canon of Scriptures, and I have no right to do any such slicing & dicing.
The council of Trent did have the right…and indeed, in the face of Luther & Co., the responsibility to declare that the Scriptures are the Scriptures are the Scriptures are the Scriptures.
Except, of course, that:dts: none assembled there having :banghead:Yours Truly’s :banghead:temper, they said it much more nicely.

[SIGN] Ay-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi!!! ****[/SIGN]

Why do you belong to the Methodist church? They don’t use the deutrocanonical books …do they?

 

[Reformed1]

What part of “It doesn’t matter” did you not understand??
John Wesley believed that all baptisms should be done by immersion. (So did my grandfathers…but I digress).
Gregory expressed his opinion that the Deuterocanonical were of lesser importance than other books in the canon. It doesn’t matter!! His personal opinion no more formed the deposit of faith, than my personal opinion that red snapper tastes like http://bestsmileys.com/sick/9.gif transforms said red snapper into poison.
It’s only an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions???

So it’s okay for a pope or any catholic to dissent from what the church teaches?

 

[kaycee]

What is your point here?

You might want to read thru the thread.

My point is that Hippo and Carthage were not recognized by the majority of the church who retained Jeromes view of the deuts.

Jeromes view and the majority view was that the “canon” consisted of inspired books and books read for edification(deuts) but not inspired.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The canon of Scritpure was canon law (not yet definitive) in the 4th century, in the jurisdiction of the Synod of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Canon law can be disagreed with, but must be followed. The canon later became universally binding, but still not definitive (at Florence). Then the canon became definitive at Trent. Many seem to not distinguish between what is binding regionally, binding universally, and what is definitive.

At the time of Gregory the Great, there was not universally binding canon of Scritpure. Thus, when writing in the East, it would be true to say that 1 Macc is not canonical.

Note that the canons of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage of the 4th century were not universal canons, but bound those specific regions. Gregory the Great was writing his Moralia in Job in Constantinople, where many of the deuterocanonicals were not yet canonized. For instance, St. John of Damasus (8th cent.) did not include the deuterocanonicals in his list of Scripture. He was not committing heresy by doing so, as 1) the canon was not yet definitive, and 2) the canon was not yet universally binding.

So, Gregory the Great, writing in the East was correct in stating that 1 Macc was not “canonical.” As Constantinople was not held bound to the canons prescribed by the local synods of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the 4th century.

That Gregory held the deuterocanonical as SCRIPTURE is clear in his Moralia in Job, as he very frequently quotes from various deuterocanonicals in this text. For example, “Scripture bears witness: Pride is the beginning of all sin. (Sirach 10:26)” Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 3, p. 85].

Locally binding canon
Consequently, in the 4th century, from the synodal canons of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, the canon of Scritpure was fixed and binding in these regions, yet not yet definitive (ie. immutable).

Universally binding canon
At the Ecumenical Council of Florence, the canon of Scripture was decreed and consequently was made universally binding.

**Definitive canon
**At the Ecumencial Council of Trent, the canon of Scritpure was definitively decreed (immutable). Thus, those like the Catholic monk Martin Luther and Cardinal Cajetan were able to disagree with canon law without being guilty of the crime of heresy because they were disagreeing with what was merely binding by law, but could potentially be loosed by the Church, as it was not yet definitive.

After Trent, if either Cajetan or Luther rejected the definitive decree regarding the canon of Scripture, they would be anathama sit. Luther continued to do so, Cajetan did not.