Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[Milliardo]

I find it funny that kaycee copies and pastes articles wholesale, but have not read the links given for her perusal. I’m talking especially about Nob Stanley’s discussion on the Deuterocanonicals; there we can see a sampling of the citations on where Jesus and the Apostles quoted verbatim, or almost verbatim, the Deuterocanonicals. It would help kaycee and others who object to first read them (I noted this because kaycee copied and pasted an article that says Jesus and the Apostles have not quoted from the Deuterocanonicals–this is simply laughable when one realizes the many number of times they quoted freely from them).

 

[Janet_S]

The Wesleys were Anglicans and believed themselves to be Anglicans till the day they died and all evidence is they viewed the apocrapha identical to the Anglican church which would have them in their Bibles and not taken out and would have readings in the lectionary from the apocrapha and an ecouragement of reading them for life lessons and instruction of manners but not to establish doctrine. Anglicans and early Methodistalso used the duterocanical books freely in"Book of Homilies" which did establish doctrine. So there was a blurring of the lines sometimes in the articles of these churchs. But the Reformers really have not done what modern Evangelicals have done in practice eliminated the apocrapha from their Bibles entirely and refuse to read them for life lessons and instruction of manners. And this brings up a point they refuse to adress why have they gone to an even more extreme step than the Refromers refusing to read these books of Judeo-Christian piety and ripping them out of the Bible. Oh I guess it is better they read instead some more Left Behind or Purpose Diven Life drivel than the insirational books that the writers of the new testament took upon themselves to mirror in their own writings.
The Reformers never said to rip them out and burn them and forget they ever existed and don’t read them but that is exactly what modern evangelicals have done.

I don’t have a reference, but I have heard that Bibles used in English courts (where you would have to “swear on the Bible”) had to include the 7 deutercanonical books. A Bible without these 7 books could not be used. Does anyone else know about this?

 

[Janet_S]

Gary,

I finished listening to your deate with James White on the deuteros a few weeks ago and have a question for you.

At one point, you and James were discussing whether or not the canon listed at Trent matched identically with the canon listed by some earlier councils such as maybe Rome and Carthage.

I think you admitted that there was a slight difference and if I remember right you said Trent passed over some part of the canon listed in the earlier councils in slience. I haven’t taken the time to research this but was curious if you could take a few minutes to explain what you two were talking about.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

I compared the lists of the canon of Scripture from the council documents of Carthage (419 AD), Florence (1431-1445 AD), and Trent (1545-1563).

All three have identical lists of canon except the Carthage documents exclude Baruch from the OT.

Specifically what I noticed: All three councils have canons which include the 27 NT books we now have in our Bibles. Regarding the OT canons in these councils, the Council of Carthage has 44 OT books (Baruch and Lamentations is missing). Florence and Trent have 45 OT books (Lamentations is missing). Catholic Bibles today have 46 OT books. I believe Lamentations and Baruch were (in times past) included in the book of Jeremiah, so that is why Baruch is missing from the Carthage documents and Lamentations is missing from all 3 documents.

 

[Zooey]

The Wesleys were Anglicans and believed themselves to be Anglicans till the day they died and all evidence is they viewed the apocrapha identical to the Anglican church which would have them in their Bibles and not taken out and would have readings in the lectionary from the apocrapha and an ecouragement of reading them for life lessons and instruction of manners but not to establish doctrine. Anglicans and early Methodistalso used the duterocanical books freely in"Book of Homilies" which did establish doctrine. So there was a blurring of the lines sometimes in the articles of these churchs. But the Reformers really have not done what modern Evangelicals have done in practice eliminated the apocrapha from their Bibles entirely and refuse to read them for life lessons and instruction of manners. And this brings up a point they refuse to adress why have they gone to an even more extreme step than the Refromers refusing to read these books of Judeo-Christian piety and ripping them out of the Bible. Oh I guess it is better they read instead some more Left Behind or Purpose Diven Life drivel than the insirational books that the writers of the new testament took upon themselves to mirror in their own writings.
The Reformers never said to rip them out and burn them and forget they ever existed and don’t read them but that is exactly what modern evangelicals have done.

Precisely! And this is why I will defend the Deuterocanon as long as there is someone to attack it…Because When I sit down to read my Bible, I want it untampered with…
If I want to read something light & fluffy, there are plenty of books in the library that I can read. But for real inspiration, give me a Bible with all seventy-three books included!!

 

[Wisdom]

I don’t have a reference, but I have heard that Bibles used in English courts (where you would have to “swear on the Bible”) had to include the 7 deutercanonical books. A Bible without these 7 books could not be used. Does anyone else know about this?

That would make sense since it was English law that all Bibles printed in England contain the apocrapha or duteros this was the case till the 1800’s when the English Bible Society changed this for the purpose of saving money of course in the cost of print publishing. I have to say I have noticed the cost of catholic Bibleds identical to that of protestant Bibles ergo you get more bang for you buck if you purchase a catholic bible.
Many Anglicans have returned to purchasing bibles with contiain the apocrapha as this is their tradition to begin with and since Vatican II we have shared the almost same exact lectionary as they use the duteros in their lectionary most of the time when we do in our readings.

 

[kaycee]

You’re in denial of reality. For instance, every Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture of other than fragmentary size holds to the larger recension of Daniel which Origen said was held by “every Church of Christ”, and which Jerome included in his Daniel citing the “judgment of the Churches.” Consequently, every Christian Church before the advent of Protestantism accepted the larger recension of Daniel, which ONLY the Protestant reject, yet the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox continue to accept.

The evidence is overwhelming yet Protestants cannot explain why they reject that which every Church of Christ before them accepted as Sacred Scripture.

Sorry, I cannot comment as i am not familiar with it, yet.

Maybe you could comment on Melito.

The earliest Christian list of the Old Testament canon was that of Melito of Sardis in the mid-second century. He went to Palestine to determine the precise number of canonical Old Testament books. The number he gave was twenty-two, the same as Josephus, though he omitted the book of Esther:

 

[Renzo]

Never ending story.

Since Protestants give away with all forms of authority and established this “Sola Scriptura” as their only source of faith, Luther and company didn’t have other option but “purge” the Bible from anything contradicting their own points of view. Thus invalidating themselves in the terms of their own believes.

Basically they followed this simple reasoning:

Only this book has the truth.
But SOME THINGS in the book I don’t like (or to put it in their words are not truth) so I exclude.
Thus getting a “new” book.
Now THIS book REALLY has the truth.

To try to resolve this already proven situation of the falsehood of the protestant basis, they (the Protestants) have tried to create a simulated contradiction in the canon of the Bible by citing debates inside the Church about the canonicity, instead of pointing out real CONFLICTING or CONTRADICTORY LEGALLY BINDING decrees according to the Church’s law. The only way they have to affirm that they didn’t exclude the books they didn’t like because they were against their ideas, was to say they were just “reaffirming” a most “old and genuine” canon from a distant “original” church of old.

Because the Church takes seriously this authenticity matter they clearly divided the canon is proto- and deutero- to clarify which ones were confirmed from the beginning and which ones were confirmed later trough much study and debate.

Were the deutero- books declared ever during the history of the Church as NON canon?
NO, they never were.

If the Church were so blatantly void of integrity as to use these self-validating fabrications, it could just do things like “retranslate” the Bible as to avoid problematic elements like when some people was called “brother” or “sister” of Jesus, and use the English (or any other language) words that the Church really believes they meant.

Instead of doing that butchers job with the Sacred Scripture, the Church just let it be as it is, because TO THE CHURCH, it was clear what it meant, and there was a unique interpretation… for the TRUTH IS ONLY ONE.

If protestants just could put their act together and realize this simple fact that THE TRUTH IS ONLY ONE, there wouldn’t be N-number of denominations and let me laugh as this later trend… non denominations .

But they will never do so, cause it would be the end of the division, and the idea of admitting they have been wrong for 500 years and sent millions down the path of schism for no good reason (thou some British folks may think that a horny king’s desire for a male heir is good enough) is just unthinkable, so guys like KAYCEE will simply go on replicating the rant of “more enlighten” protestants “thinkers” and copy pasting them to infinity, specially, and this is the irony of it, citing CATHOLIC sources themselves, to try to show us that what for them, is so clear…

 

[kaycee]

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?
.

Sorry, Both opinions existed in the early church before Jerome. The protestant is only following the OT that the Jews accepted and admitted by many ECF’s.

Origen was the greatest biblical scholar of the early patristic age who had direct contact with the Jews. Eusebius preserved the catalogue of Jewish canonical books which Origen says he received from them:

It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two

It is clear that Origen held the Septuagint in high regard and felt that a number of the books of the Apocrypha were part of the revelation given by God. He believed the Septuagint to be inspired. Obviously, he was mistaken. Even the Roman Catholic Church admits this. The evidence for this is seen in the fact that the official Roman Catholic Bible is the Latin Vulgate produced by Jerome which underscored the errors in the Septuagint text and was based on a translation from the Hebrew. Rome has officially repudiated the Septuagint. So, the veneration of the early Church fathers (such as Origen) for the Septuagint and certain of the Apocryphal books, and belief in their inspiration, was misguided.

Prior to Origen, Clement of Alexandria not only cited a number of the Apocryphal books as Scripture, specifically Wisdom, Tobit and Ecclesiasticus, but also certain pseudepigraphal works as well.

Cyril of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century, gave a complete catalogue of the canonical Old Testament books **received by the Church of his day **in his Catechetical Lectures. As pointed out previously, he mentioned the Jewish numeration of twenty-two books and gave a list of the specific books which comprise the canon. There are a number of important facts to note in Cyril’s comments. First of all, he states that this listing is the authoritative canon which was handed down by the Church. Secondly, he states that the canon he gave came from the Septuagint, but it excluded most of the books of the Apocrypha.

Athanasius of Alexandria also gave a list of the Old Testament canon. Like Cyril he listed the number of books at twenty-two and citeed their identity.** He mentions that the books he listed were those that had been handed down by tradition in the Church**He went so far as to say that no man was to add to these books and was careful to distinguish between those that were truly authoritative and canonical and those that were useful for reading purposes only. He listed a number of Apocryphal books in this latter category as well as Esther.

christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html

 

[Church_Militant]

Sorry, Both opinions existed in the early church before Jerome. The protestant is only following the OT that the Jews accepted and admitted by many ECF’s.

Not true at all. The Jews celebrate a feast to this day that was established in the books of Maccabees, and if you are attempting to appeal to the alleged "council of Jamniah (or Javneh I sometimes see it called I think), that was not even a real Jewish council and had no authority to canonize anything. The Jews to this day debate the inspiration of various books.

Moreover, if you do appeal to them then you place yourself in the company of the very people who rejected Christ as the Messiah, something no modern Christian would even consider doing with any other religious group that held a similar opinion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You are still just listing names. These are all just opinions. You have yet to show a Church Council that supported a shorter canon.

You make a very important point. When Catholics speak of the canon of Scripture, they cite historical synodal canons, which represent the mind of the an entire synod of Christians, promulgated to the rest of those subject to the authority of that synod. Much like many opinions differed among Christians regarding the issue of circumcision, their individual and personal opinions did not constitute decrees (Gk dogmata) of the Church. Instead, the council of elders who assembled at Jerusalem in the first century, after much disagreement, authoritatively decreed that which the Church authentically believed on the matter. To claim that contrary personal opinions were the “majority” is a failure to understand how the Divinely established authority of the Church manifests its authentic beliefs as they did in Scripture.

When Protestants attempt to speak of the canonicity of Scripture, they cite the gelatin of personal opinions. When Catholics speak of the canonicity of Scripture, they cite synodal CANONS of the Church. When one reflects upon this fact, it is easier to see why the majority of Christians since the advent of Christ have rejected the novel notion of a 66-book Bible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… i am not familiar with it, yet.

I recommend you review the historical evidence then. We have access to many Christian manuscripts of Sacred Scripture, the most ancient of which in other than fragmentary form ALL testify to a larger version of Daniel. Origen’s Daniel and Jerome’s Daniel are equivalent to the Catholic/Orthodox Daniel. All of the Churches of Christ prior to the advent of Protestantism understood this larger version of Daniel to be the inspired Word of God. ALL OF THEM. We have all the evidence in the world to rationally draw this conclusion. Yet, Protestants cling to a denial, and pretend that they accept the scholarship of the early fathers. I find such a claim untenable, given the most ancient manuscript evidence and the writings of Origen and Jerome.

Even the most ancient Hebrew fragments of Scripture which date before the first century most recently found at Qumran, fragmentary as they may be, testify to multiple recensions of various books of Scripture, to include the larger recension of the Book of Daniel. I recommend you look at the evidence as it clearly shows the Protestant claims are untenable.

Maybe you could comment on Melito.

Sure. What would you like to know? How authoritative was it, since Melito of Sardis omitted the Book of Esther much like the first century Hebrew community at Qumran did according to the findings there. [cf. “Dead Sea Scrolls” in B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan (Ed.), *Oxford Companion To The Bible, 1993, Oxford University Press: Oxford & New York, p. 159.]. According to the Talmud, as late as 3rd or 4th century AD, some Jews still did not regard Esther as canonical. Likewise, St. Athanasius (c. 367 CE), St. Gregory of Nazianzus (d. AD 390), Junilius (c. AD 550) and Nicephorus (d. AD 828) all rejected Esther from their list of Sacred Texts.

Do you suppose if Melito was from a different region or went to a different Hebrew community he would have included the Book of Esther or other texts, like Tobit and Sirach, both of which were found at Qumran?

Was his list, then, a comprehensive study of all Hebrew communities of the 2nd cent? Was it mere opinion? Or was it understood as binding canon law for any juridical region of Christianity? Moreoeer, was Melito’s version of Daniel based upon Theodotion’s version, a 2nd century Hebrew scholar whose version of Daniel is a larger recension than that of other Hebrews of the 2nd cent., and larger than then truncated version rather arbitrarily accepted by Protestants?

Do you accept the canon of Melito as authoritative? If so, do you also reject the Book of Esther as other Hebrews of the first century did? Luther said of Esther: “I am so great an enemy to the second book of Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities.” [Luther, Table Talk]. Do you follow Luther? By what authority do you claim only 66 books of the Bible? Surely you have more than opinion, right?
Instead of simply numbering the books, perhaps you should look more closely at the details.

According to **Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 26:
**

But in the Extracts made by him the same writer * gives at the beginning of the Introduction a catalog of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows:
“Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting! Since you have often, in your zeal for the Word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire Faith, and have also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient books, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing your zeal for the faith, and your desire to gain information in regard to the Word, and knowing that you, in your yearning after God, esteem these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went to the East and reached the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon’s Proverbs or Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito.
*This doesn’t match the Protestant Bible, right? In fact, no synodal canon in Christian history prior to the advent of Protestantism matched the Protestant Bible’s 66-book list with truncated Daniel and Esther, right?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Origen was the greatest biblical scholar of the early patristic age who had direct contact with the Jews.

If you think so highly of Origen, then why do you reject his version of Sacred Scripture?

According Eusebius (4th century historian) Origen included Baruch [as part of Jeremiah] and Maccabees as Scripture [cf. Philip Schaff’s NPNF2, I:272, “Origen, Canon of the Hebrews, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 6:25 [AD 244]).

Again, don’t be so simple-minded in your study of the canonicity of Scripture so as to merely count books. Do some actual reading. I did, and the Protestant claims fell apart once I looked at the detail…

Origen on the Scriptural authority of Maccabees…

                    "But **that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture** that such is the                          case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs                          exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask                          of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which                          are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when                          they did not exist' **2 Maccabees 7:28**]." *Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2                              (A.D. 230).

Origen contrasts Christian Bible with the Hebrew Bible! Obviously what he considers “our Scripture” differs from what the Hebrews of his day claimed as Scritpure…

“In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, ‘Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.’ Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy [ie. the LXX which contained more than the Hebrew Bible], lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community.” Origen, To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:387)

Origen is DEFENDING “our Scripture” against those who would “accredit any forgery of the Churches,” like Africanus.

Origen goes on to defend the portions of Daniel which Protestants reject:

I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna…the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ*…the two other passages …containing the history of Bel and the Dragon*,** which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel**…**Of the copies in my possession whose readings I gave, one follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion [2nd. cent. HEBREW scholar]; and just as the History of Susanna which you call a forgery is found in both, together with the passages at the end of Daniel [ibid.]

What was “handed on” by the Hebrews was not consistent with what wa “handed on” by OTHER Hebrews. Qumran proves this, yet some obstinately refuse to realize this fact.

It is clear that Origen is defending against Africanus’ charge of “forgery” the authenticity of the Christian Bible IN CONTRAST to the Hebrew version of his day.

Why don’t you accept Origen’s version of Scripture? No Church of Christ in history held to the truncated version of the Book of Daniel until the novelties of Protestantism.

 

[Janet_S]

For some people, it doesn’t matter if you can’t find Church council documents that exclude the 7 deuterocanonical books. They refuse to acknowledge they belong in the Bible.

For some people, it doesn’t matter if you can’t find a Bible before the Reformation that excludes the 7 deuterocanonical books. They refuse to acknowledge they belong in the Bible.

For some people it wouldn’t matter if Jerome himself rose from the dead and told them the 7 deuterocanonical books belonged in the Bible. They still would refuse to acknowledge they belong in the Bible.

Some people refuse to acknowledge the CC is right about anything. There’s nothing you could say to convince them otherwise.

 

[kaycee]

Sure is a lot of doubletalk in these statements lets see “You can’t prove that Jesus apostles used the dueteros and even if you culd prove it that doesn’t prove canonicity” Well then we can’t win either way with that sort of statement. This is the most closed minded bunk that gives us a lock box into any valid argument concerning the useage of the dueteros in the early church. Ok then what were all the criteria for the Jews for the Old Testament Canon and why doesn’t that same critieria apply to the New Testament? At least be honest about all of this like FF Bruce who concludes there is no way of knowing what the criteria was of the Jews or the Early Christians. Each believed they had an authority to rule on the matter in case of the Jews the Rabbinical Jews of the second and third century which did not include any Christian Jews opinion on the matter and of course the early christian church which used the duteros as its regular scripture up till the councils of Africa without too much dispute. IT was only after reading the traditions of man ie Jerome did some reject the duteros but this was the opinion of man not the finding of any church council nor the practice of the church the first four centuries.

Since the author is catholic, is it still “close minded bunk”?

 

[Zooey]

Not true at all. The Jews celebrate a feast to this day that was established in the books of Maccabees, and if you are attempting to appeal to the alleged "council of Jamniah (or Javneh I sometimes see it called I think), that was not even a real Jewish council and had no authority to canonize anything. The Jews to this day debate the inspiration of various books.

Moreover, if you do appeal to them then you place yourself in the company of the very people who rejected Christ as the Messiah, something no modern Christian would even consider doing with any other religious group that held a similar opinion.

For some people, it doesn’t matter if you can’t find Church council documents that exclude the 7 deuterocanonical books. They refuse to acknowledge they belong in the Bible.

For some people, it doesn’t matter if you can’t find a Bible before the Reformation that excludes the 7 deuterocanonical books. They refuse to acknowledge they belong in the Bible.

For some people it wouldn’t matter if Jerome himself rose from the dead and told them the 7 deuterocanonical books belonged in the Bible. They still would refuse to acknowledge they belong in the Bible.

Some people refuse to acknowledge the CC is right about anything. There’s nothing you could say to convince them otherwise.

Some people would:dts: reject the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books if angels descended from Heaven to tell them different.
You’re right; it’s sheer uch:irrational uch: prejudices.

 

[GMichuta]

Gary,

I finished listening to your deate with James White on the deuteros a few weeks ago and have a question for you.

At one point, you and James were discussing whether or not the canon listed at Trent matched identically with the canon listed by some earlier councils such as maybe Rome and Carthage.

I think you admitted that there was a slight difference and if I remember right you said Trent passed over some part of the canon listed in the earlier councils in slience. I haven’t taken the time to research this but was curious if you could take a few minutes to explain what you two were talking about.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Sure, I would be glad to. James took an argument that William Webster proposes, namely, that the Councils of Carthage, Hippo et al. affirmed the canonicity of the Book of Esdras and that Trent contradicted these earlier decisions by rejecting Esdras. I was a little embarassed for James because it appeared that he didn’t really look into the question very closely. Trent did not “reject” Esdras, rather the council fathers voted to remain silent on Esdras and a couple of other books. Therefore, there is no contradicton between Trent and previous Councils. It is really as simple as that. I believe James was a little confused as to how Trent affirmed the canon. His questions seem to indicate that he believed that Trent was trying to affirm one version of the OT against another (Vulgate or LXX). The fathers at Trent had nothing like this in mind. What did you think of the debate?

Gary

www.HandsOnApologetics.com

 

[GMichuta]

You are still just listing names. These are all just opinions. You have yet to show a Church Council that supported a shorter canon.

I should also add the Webster’s assessment grossly over simplifies what these fathers taught on this issue. I would have to reproduce a couple of chapter from my book to refute each one. Needless to say, none deny the inspiration of the Deuterocanon. Some are using the word “canon” in a different sense than we do today while others are reproduce Jerome’s opinions but do not follow him because they use the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture.

 

[El_camino]

**Actually William Webster does know history!

Jerome DID NOT recant.**

The citation above, is used to prove that Jerome recanted and followed the “judgement of the churches” meaning Hippo and Carthage. This quote is used to mislead, possibly by accident.

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 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:
**
Jerome’s quote in context. Your portion 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.” Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

**The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. The translation was faulty, wasn’t based on the Septuagint, and condemned by the “right judgment of the churches”, but the reader can see that this in no way applies to the decision on canon made at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html**

KAYCEE, I don’t even know why you posted all this… Nothing changes the original point that JEROME followed the JUDGEMENT of the CHURCHES (even for what you emphasized in bold), and that here he DEFENDED the DEUTEROCANONICAL PORTIONS OF the book of DANIEL!

THE JUDGEMENT of the CHURCHES was to accept the DEUTEROCANONICALS, and Jerome FOLLOWED it, even over his own opinions…

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Please remember my directions concerning quotes from other websites.

The guidelines are no more than 3 short paragraphs and should always include a link for verification.

Longer quotes than that, w/w/o links will get infractions.
MF

 

[El_camino]

Sure, I would be glad to. James took an argument that William Webster proposes, namely, that the Councils of Carthage, Hippo et al. affirmed the canonicity of the Book of Esdras and that Trent contradicted these earlier decisions by rejecting Esdras. I was a little embarassed for James because it appeared that he didn’t really look into the question very closely. Trent did not “reject” Esdras, rather the council fathers voted to remain silent on Esdras and a couple of other books. Therefore, there is no contradicton between Trent and previous Councils. It is really as simple as that. I believe James was a little confused as to how Trent affirmed the canon. His questions seem to indicate that he believed that Trent was trying to affirm one version of the OT against another (Vulgate or LXX). The fathers at Trent had nothing like this in mind. What did you think of the debate?

Gary

www.HandsOnApologetics.com

So please explain to me… I would understand if they remain silent on Esdras (or Ezra), as that was well accepted as part of the canon, so it did not necessarily need to be added.

But what other books did they remain silent on, and if they did, does that mean the canon is not closed yet?

Thanks,

E.C.