Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[kaycee]

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

I think it was addressed to Nancy, Janet.

No one is saying the Gloss was authoritative, just that it proves that Carthage and Hippo were not universal and most of the better educated Dr.s of the Church who knew the ancient languages followed Jerome. The RCC admits that Trent settled the matter and apparently by fiat and without any scholarly investigation of the actual text.

Renowned scholar, B.F. Westcott, makes these comments regarding the decree of Trent:

“This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced.”

 

[kaycee]

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.

Are you suggesting that Webster is making stuff up?

I have never read anything of his without extensive documented sources!

 

[TheApologist]

Well, yes. Nancie said that she found the commentary we were talking about and the Preface only didn’t approve of pseudo-deuteros. Since Webster said that it didn’t approve of any deuteros and claimed them uncanonical, I would say, yes, he was lying.

 

[TheApologist]

I’d like to know what you think Trent did…

It reaffirmed the Canon which the church held since the early councils. Ecumenical councils do not need German scholars to be infallible. They are guided by the Holy Spirit. I’d say that the Holy Spirit would lead them to a greater Truth than a German scholar.

 

[Janet_S]

Kaycee, sorry to bother you, but you’re the only Protestant here.

Here’s the question:

Williams Webster says in the article:
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html#6up

“The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.”

If sola Scripture was the operative principle of the Church from the beginning of the post apostolic age, why did the Church wait until the 16th century at the Council of Trent to “settle the matter.”

(Also, you said “I have never read anything of his (Webster)without extensive documented sources!” Maybe you never read the above article then where documented sources are seriously lacking.)

 

[lak611]

Kaycee, sorry to bother you, but you’re the only Protestant here.

Here’s the question:

Williams Webster says in the article:
christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html#6up

“The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.”

If sola Scripture was the operative principle of the Church from the beginning of the post apostolic age, why did the Church wait until the 16th century at the Council of Trent to “settle the matter.”

(Also, you said “I have never read anything of his (Webster)without extensive documented sources!” Maybe you never read the above article then where documented sources are seriously lacking.)

Just because Webster mentions the fact the the ECF quoted Scripture does not make them believers of Sola Scriptura. I can quote lots of Scripture too, but that doesn’t mean I believe in Sola Scriptura. Webster’s claim is illogical.

 

[TheApologist]

Kaycee, sorry to bother you, but you’re the only Protestant here.

I think Nancie is also a Protestant, but no worries! (Be happy. That song is stuck in my head now. )

 

[Wisdom]

Well, yes. Nancie said that she found the commentary we were talking about and the Preface only didn’t approve of pseudo-deuteros. Since Webster said that it didn’t approve of any deuteros and claimed them uncanonical, I would say, yes, he was lying.

No wonder Kaycee is in shock he relies on Webster as his personal magisterium and sole authority on the matter. Instead of going to primary sources all we get from Kaycee is a cut and paste job from Webster.
We have raised this issue a few times on this thread that Webster sometimes does not use primary source material and many times resorts to personal opinion rather than exact quotes from primary sources.
Gary Michuta has said he has misrepresented some facts as well.
The lesson here is to do your own homework and check the primary source material yourself and check other scholarly opinions other than what seems to be a hack apologist with sometimes sloppy scholarship.

 

[Janet_S]

I think Nancie is also a Protestant, but no worries! (Be happy. That song is stuck in my head now. )

She’s not Catholic, but she never said what she is. In one of her previous posts, she said she believes in re-incarnation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think it was addressed to Nancy, Janet.

No one is saying the Gloss was authoritative, just that it proves that Carthage and Hippo were not universal and most of the better educated Dr.s of the Church who knew the ancient languages followed Jerome. The RCC admits that Trent settled the matter and apparently by fiat and without any scholarly investigation of the actual text.

Yet the Church did use them. Find me a translation of the Bible prior to the Council of Trent that did not have those Deutrocanonical Books.

If you done your search, you can’t find one. Even Wyncliff Bible have 73 Books of the OT versus the 66 OT of the Protestants.

Renowned scholar, B.F. Westcott, makes these comments regarding the decree of Trent:

Yet these remain opinions of a Non-Catholic, they are not official decrees of the Church. I have yet see you post decrees that null and void the Council of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo.

Truly you made an unconvincing argument.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

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

First of all this claim about the Septuagint is bogus. The Catholic church has never been able to prove that the Septuagint even existed. The Catholic Church simply used Origen’s Hexapia… which included apocryphal writings in it. Jerome used the Hebrew Testament along with Origens apocryphal books to write the Vulgate. The Vulgate wasn’t even the first Latin Bible it was the Vetus Itala which contained numerous errors in it. That is why the RCC wanted the Vulgate to try to correct the errors in the Vetus Itala.

I don’t care what the glossia says or doesn’t say. The Hebrew Testament (without the Apocrypha) is the “Real McCoy” not the phony Greek Septuagint.

 

[Mannyfit75]

First of all this claim about the Septuagint is bogus. The Catholic church has never been able to prove that the Septuagint even existed. The Catholic Church simply used Origen’s Hexapia… which included apocryphal writings in it. Jerome used the Hebrew Testament along with Origens apocryphal books to write the Vulgate. The Vulgate wasn’t even the first Latin Bible it was the Vetus Itala which contained numerous errors in it. That is why the RCC wanted the Vulgate to try to correct the errors in the Vetus Itala.

I don’t care what the glossia says or doesn’t say. The Hebrew Testament (without the Apocrypha) is the “Real McCoy” not the phony Greek Septuagint.

Are you that blind. Any Biblical Scholar that the Septuagint is one translated from 70 Jewish Scholars from Alexandria, Egypt in 265 B.C. It was translated because the Jews outside Palestine lost their Hebrew Language since the need of the Septuagint was put into context.

The Septuagint is basically a Greek Translation of the Hebrew Text of the OT.

It has basically from all of the Tanakh (Hebrew Text) plus the 7 Deutrocanonical Books of Tobit, Saruch, Maccabees 1 and 2. If you claim that you deny it then why do the Jews in Ethopia use the Septuagint themselves?

Are you just implying that the Septuagint never exist? Then explain that to the Jews in Ethopia.

 

[Mannyfit75]

First of all this claim about the Septuagint is bogus. The Catholic church has never been able to prove that the Septuagint even existed. The Catholic Church simply used Origen’s Hexapia… which included apocryphal writings in it. Jerome used the Hebrew Testament along with Origens apocryphal books to write the Vulgate. The Vulgate wasn’t even the first Latin Bible it was the Vetus Itala which contained numerous errors in it. That is why the RCC wanted the Vulgate to try to correct the errors in the Vetus Itala.

I don’t care what the glossia says or doesn’t say. The Hebrew Testament (without the Apocrypha) is the “Real McCoy” not the phony Greek Septuagint.

I also like to add that Jerome recanted and said the Church had the right to issue a decree that the Deutrocanonical Books in inspired.

St. Jerome himself cannot issue decree. He is not the Pope. He does not speak as speaker for the entire Church.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I will add that my KJV study bible whose notes and commentaires were created by notable Protestant Pastors and Theologians continually cite the Septuagint.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

She’s not Catholic, but she never said what she is. In one of her previous posts, she said she believes in re-incarnation.

I don’t belong to any .:nope: I came on this board to learn about Catholicism.:yup: I admit that I don’t know a great deal about Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism so I have to do a bit of web-surfing in order to not form a biased opinion in favor of one religion. :yup: However I have read enough now about Methodism to know that

[SIGN]Zoooooooooooooooooooey Girl[/SIGN] :nope: :nope: is not a Methodist :tsktsk: .

Why she chooses :tsktsk: to present herself as one is beyond me.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Nancie,

This is what Pope Damasus I said in the Council of Rome 382 A.D concerning the OT and 27 Books of the NT.

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;

Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book.

Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, one to the Corinthians [2 Corinthians is not mentioned], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.

Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the** Catholic Church **is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

It is in this Council the OT and the NT are officially canonized. This list is also the same as the Council of Trent, which only AFFIRMED the previous other Councils concerning Scripture.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Here is my link Manny.

members.core.com/~sbruni00/158_09.html

 

[Mannyfit75]

Here is my link Manny.

members.core.com/~sbruni00/158_09.html

For the most part that information you received contains a lot of historical errors.

The LXX does not have the so called “The Letter of Aristeas”

and the commentary the cite made is done poorly.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Here are some commentary from a fellow Catholic Apologist from Catholic Answers;

1. Why did the Catholic Church add seven books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith—to the Old Testament? John forbids this: “I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book” (Rev. 22:18).

It’s always good to start a disagreement with agreement. So before you explain the Catholic canon of the Old Testament to Protestant, agree that no one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible. That’s about as much common ground as you may have to build on.

Quoting Rev. 22:18 against Catholics is ineffective. For one thing, the next verse could be used by the Catholics against Protestants with the same opposite force: “[A]nd if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev. 22:19).

But neither verse applies to this debate. John is speaking only about the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. None of the apostles knew the Bible. The books that comprise Scripture were not canonized until centuries after Christ. Even when that list was established in A.D. 382, the writings were not collected into a single book until after the printing press came into existence. Even Guttenburg’s Bible was published in more than one volume.

Besides, the Greek word here for “book” is more accurately translated as “scroll.” The book of Revelation likely was written on a scroll, but it would have been impossible for the entire Bible to be.

1. Since the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), shouldn’t we have the same Old Testament canon as they do?

Though this is not a sound objection, it at least requires a detailed answer.

God’s written word was entrusted to the Jews, but he never provided them with an inspired table of contents. For that reason, there has been ample disagreement over the canon—especially among Jews.

The Old Testament took over one thousand years to compile, and the list of inspired books grew continuously as God’s word was revealed. This gradual accretion indicated that the Jewish people felt no need for a static canon but remained open to further revelation. They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order). By the time of Christ, the law—and most likely the prophets—was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed.

Source: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

 

[Mannyfit75]

((continue))

Same source:

In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.

When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics.

If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.

1. But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.

This is a myth that always comes up but is simple to answer. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible.