Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tertullian is a great example.🙂 He not only accepted the Deutrocanicals as cannon he was also willing to open the list even wider. He argued for the divine nature of the Sibylline Oracles as a parallel revelation to the Bible.
The Sibylline Oracle never made it to the list of canon in 382 AD.

Here is the list from the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Carthage 397 AD, St. Innocent, and Council of Trent,

lrc.edu/rel/blosser/canon_list.htm
 
ANSWER: Pope Damascus decreed those books canonical. See above text.

No. Actually, Jerome doubted the books but Augustine convince him that the Church had authority to decree these deutrocanonical books inspired.

In fact he regretted it by saying,

“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, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not 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]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.
**Jerome never changed his mind as admitted by Gary Michuta see post #128

This quote used to show Jerome recanting is used to MISLEAD and does not say that at all!
See admitted error by Mark Shea, post #67**
 
Okay, can you please quote the exact words of the Preface. Just because you find a site which says that the Preface said something…doesn’t mean that it’s true.

What pope wouldn’t want biblical scholars to be studying the different translations of the Bible? (The Biblia Complutensia was a Polyglot.)
How can you say that just because Leo X authorized it to be read, it means that he agreed with an editorial comment(if it exists)?

ANSWER THIS. DO NOT SIMPLY SKIP IT.
Can’t find the preface in my short search, but did find other references to it from Westcott and Metzger.

The late NT textual critic, B.F. Westcott wrote:

“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia - the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press - separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” (Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (MacMillan: Cambridge, 1889), pp. 470-471; bold emphasis ours)

Bruce M. Metzger, a favorite of Bravo, 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.” (Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha [Oxford: New York, 1957], p. 180; bold emphasis ours)

answering-islam.de/Main/Responses/Saifullah/bravo7.htm
 
**Jerome never changed his mind as admitted by Gary Michuta see post #128

This quote used to show Jerome recanting is used to MISLEAD and does not say that at all! **

Yes he did. Do you have a quote that say he recanted. He made it pretty clear he recanted. Find a quote that he did recant. Though, Jerome wrote the Latin Vulgate he had not authority to have the Church to issues decrees.
See admitted error by Mark Shea, post #67
I have yet see you post an official decree by the Catholic Church that states these books were not Canonical.

So far like I said before you only resort to posting OPINIONS…
 
What pope wouldn’t want biblical scholars to be studying the different translations of the Bible? (The Biblia Complutensia was a Polyglot.)
How can you say that just because Leo X authorized it to be read, it means that he agreed with an editorial comment(if it exists)?


Could you answer this?
 
The Glossa ordinaria, is the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians. The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes its importance. The issue of the Apocrypha is seen in the Glossa Ordinaria from the statements in the Preface concerning all the Apocrypha books. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It goes on to say that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome.
 
The Glossa ordinaria, is the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians. The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes its importance. The issue of the Apocrypha is seen in the Glossa Ordinaria from the statements in the Preface concerning all the Apocrypha books. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It goes on to say that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome.
The Catholic Church does not consider them Apocrychal and they always been a part of the Canon of Scripture since the beginning. Still you have not cited a decree from the Church that made said they were not inspired.
 
Could you source this please? I have searched the Catholic Encyclopedia(newadvent.org) and I cannot find this about the glossa ordinaria.

EDIT:
Oh, sorry I didn’t realize that the New Catholic Encyclopedia was a book. Please quote it.

Also the writer(s)* of the glossa ordinaria were not official(did not have authority to declare law or truth).*
 
Really I did the same search from newadvent.org and its not stated.

Even if this did exist it isn’t a decree issued by the Pope.

It was Pope Damascus I issued the both the OT 73 and NT 27 Books of the Bible as a decree.
 
You also have to note that the glossa ordinaria is a commentary. This in no way has the authority to state was is in or out of the canon.
 
You also have to note that the glossa ordinaria is a commentary. This in no way has the authority to state was is in or out of the canon.
It is. It isn’t a decree. Last time I check when the Catholic Church issues decrees, it is the Pope who speaks in behalf of the Entire Church.
 
The popular Bible studies of the middle ages does not adress anything new they repeated many times verbatim the old opinions of St Jerome. If your read them they refer to Jerome thought this and that not that the Church ruled this and that. That’s what they were Jerome’s opinions. They were not church councils and church councils trumped opinions and in fact the opinions prior to Jerome were one sided the other way around. Every western church father prior to him disagreed with Jerome’s opinion and thought the duteros were scripture. Your talking a four hundered year tradtiion from the apostoles to councils of Africa you don’t hit a bump in objection till Jerome in the West. In the East you don’t start getting objections till after Nicea. I will grant that after Jerome’s notes were spread thoughout seminaries it became a more popular opinion especially in the middle ages. But this really becomes a tradition per Jerome in the West and not the regular practice of the catholic church which was to include the books in the Bible which they did. It was only persons who subscribed exclusively to the scholarship of Jerome who was popular with and in the middle ages as Jerome was having a resurgance in the monastaries. But the opinion of Jerome never stood against the Councils and rulings of the church no more than the opinions of Arius who had 90 percent of the Eastern Bishops beleiving in his heresey, sorry the church is not ruled by one man’s opinion but but the church’s magesterium . See acts 15 it appears all the Jewish Christians which were the church majority at the time objected to eating of non kosher meat and elsewhere circumscision at both times their opinions were overuled by the Church councils headed by Peter. It was not opinion that mattered but the Councils. It’s not very Biblical and not very historical the way Protestants use the opinion of one man and attach themselves to that one man for authority when he does not have the authority to trump the church is the way of heretics starting from the Bible’s Judaizers till today’s protestants.
 
The popular Bible studies or commentaries of the middle ages does not adress anything new they repeated many times verbatim the old opinions of St Jerome. If your read them they refer to Jerome thought this and judged that not that the Church Council ruled this and that. That’s what they were Jerome’s opinions. They were not church councils and church councils trumped opinions and in fact the opinions prior to Jerome were one sided the other way around. Every western church father prior to him disagreed with Jerome’s judgement and opinion and they thought the duteros were scripture. Your talking a four hundered year tradtiion from the apostoles to councils of Africa you don’t hit a bump in objection till Jerome in the West. In the East you don’t start getting objections till after Nicea.

I will grant that after Jerome’s notes were spread thoughout seminaries it became a more popular opinion especially in the middle ages. But this really becomes a tradition per Jerome in the West and not the regular practice of the catholic church which was to include the books in the Bible which they did. It was only persons who subscribed exclusively to the scholarship of Jerome who was popular with and in the middle ages as Jerome was having a resurgance in the monastaries. But the opinion of Jerome never stood against the Councils and rulings of the church no more than the opinions of Arius who had 90 percent of the Eastern Bishops beleiving in his heresey, sorry the church is not ruled by one man’s opinion but but the church’s magesterium . See acts 15 it appears all the Jewish Christians which were the church majority at the time objected to eating of non kosher meat and elsewhere circumscision at both times their opinions were overuled by the Church councils headed by Peter. It was not opinion that mattered but the Councils. It’s not very Biblical and not very historical the way Protestants use the opinion of one man and attach themselves to that one man for authority when he does not have the authority to trump the church is the way of heretics starting from the Bible’s Judaizers till today’s protestants.
 
Glossa ordinaria

newadvent.org/cathen/06586a.htm

Excerpt:
V. GLOSSES AS COMMENTARIES

As Scriptural commentaries there are two celebrated glosses on the Vulgate. The former is the “Glossa Ordinaria”, thus called from its common use during the Middle Ages. Its author, the German Walafrid Strabo (died 849), had some knowledge of Greek and made extracts chiefly from the Latin Fathers and from the writings of his master, Rabanus Maurus, for the purpose of illustrating the various senses – principally the literal sense – of all the books of Holy Writ. This gloss is quoted as a high authority by St. Thomas Aquinas, and it was known as “the tongue of Scripture”. Until the seventeenth century it remained the favourite commentary on the Bible; and it was only gradually superseded by more independent works of exegesis. The “Glossa Ordinaria” is found in vols. CXIII and CXIV of Migne, P. L. The second gloss, the “Glossa Interlinearis”, derived its name from the fact that it was written over the words in the text of the Vulgate. It was the work of Anselm of Laon (died 1117), who had some acquaintance with Hebrew and Greek. After the twelfth century copies of the Vulgate were usually supplied with both these glasses, the “Glossa Ordinaria” being inserted in the margin, at the top and at the sides, and the “Glossa Interlinearis” being placed between the lines of the Vulgate text; while later, from the fourteenth century onward, the “Postilla” of Nicholas of Lyra and the “Additions” of Paulus Brugensis were added at the foot of each page. Some early printed editions of the Vulgate exhibit all this exegetical apparatus; and the latest and best among them is the one by Leander a S. Martino, O.S.B. (six vols. fol., Antwerp, 1634).
Sometimes a Google Search is better…
 
The Glossa ordinaria, is the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians. The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes its importance. The issue of the Apocrypha is seen in the Glossa Ordinaria from the statements in the Preface concerning all the Apocrypha books. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It goes on to say that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: **'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of **Judith etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome.
Have you seen these introductions (in bold) you are talking about? What is your source?

Where in Jerome’s Prologues to Judith and Tobit does Jerome say they are not included in the Church’s canon of Scripture?

**What I see (from Jerome’s own words) is that 1) The bishops told him to translate Tobit and 2) The Council of Nicea counted the book of Judith among sacred Scripture. **

Jerome’s Prologue to Tobias (written AD 405-407)

I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in the Chaldean language into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. **But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be **subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words.

Jerome’s Prologue to Judith (AD 405-407)

Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. **But because this book is found by the Nicene Council ****to have been counted among the number of the **Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.

Receive the widow Judith, an example of chastity, and declare triumphal honor with perpetual praises for her. For this one has the Rewarder of her chastity given as imitable not only for women but also for men, Who granted her such strength, that she conquered the one unconquered by all men, she surpassed the insurpassable.
 
The Glossia was influential, not because it had great authority, but because so many scholars read it. Otherwise, St. Francis de Sales would have addressed it in his apology against Protestants. Instead de Sales said essentially, “It just a gloss.”

Here is question for you. If the Glossia stated that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture, would you accept it as Scripture simply because the Glossia said so? If you wouldn’t, why do you think it has authority when it “rejects” them? I put rejects in quotes because the Glossia also includes favorable quotations as well.

Gary

www.HandsOnApologetics.com
 
Not True! In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification

This Bible, as well as its Preface, was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.
I hate to admit this but I think Websters assertions are wrong. I found a book about Cardinal Ximenes, Pope Leo X and the Complutensian Polygot. It was on Questia com. From what I read there is no preface condemning the Apocrypha books. What Pope Leo does condemn are pseudo-Apocrypha books. But who really knows… perhaps the Vatican isn’t telling the truth (maybe they fudged the real documents). After all the Vatican has all of these secret documents (I tried to check some of them out on the Vatican web-site) that the average person isn’t permitted to read.

Pope Leo X wasn’t exactly a paragon of virtue. A number of his Cardinals did plot to assassinate him.
 
I would like it if you would stop the speculative bash-talk. Thank you. Please respect us.
 
I would like it if you would stop the speculative bash-talk. Thank you. Please respect us.
When something supports our view protestants resort to conspiracy theory, its no different than the Davinci Code crowd. Please the Vatican has not changed the history books regarding the canon as you wouldn’t be able to cite the objectors whose opinion differed such as Jerome and Cajetan if that was the case.
ANd if the Vatican if guilty of such things than how do you know your new testament was the result of a conspiracy theory as the Davinci Code theorizes what next your going to consult the gnostic scriptures that the Vatican did rightly try to supress.

Webster has a habit of giving us many paraphrases of history without primary source documentation. And anyone who does this consistently should be viewed with suspicion as are their biased findings. Jerome’s opinions were constantly referred to in Bible commentaries but very little new was written as far as objections to the duteros in the west it was always the case as Jerome’s opinion was this and the church’s findings are this. Two different things. It was very rarely the case of Jerome trumping the council.
 
The Glossia was influential, not because it had great authority, but because so many scholars read it. Otherwise, St. Francis de Sales would have addressed it in his apology against Protestants. Instead de Sales said essentially, “It just a gloss.”

Here is question for you. If the Glossia stated that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture, would you accept it as Scripture simply because the Glossia said so? If you wouldn’t, why do you think it has authority when it “rejects” them? I put rejects in quotes because the Glossia also includes favorable quotations as well.

Gary

www.HandsOnApologetics.com
This shows the difference between the Catholic and Protestant positions on the OT and NT canon. Catholics will accept whatever the Church Councils decide since this is the Magisterium of the Church (bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome guided by the Holy Spirit.) Catholics recognize the Magisterium as divinely authoritative.

Protestants have already come to a conclusion about the OT and NT canon. They don’t recognize the Church as being divinely authoritative. The only way they can support their conclusion is by picking and choosing people who agree with them.

Which worldview makes more sense?

Kaycee, are you going to answer Gary’s question above?

Would you accept the deutercanonical books as scripture if Jerome said they were accepted by the Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top