Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[Nancie_Lew]

I"ve checked a number of Jewish web-sites and not one of them says that the Apocrypha books were written with Divine inspiration. They also contain ideas that are antithetical to true Judaism. Judaism therefore does not encourage people to read them.

Read Talmud Sanhedrin 100b regarding the Apocrypha as “external books.”.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Here are some quotes by Jewish historic figures about the Apocrypha.

The Jewish historic figure R. Gedaliah. “It is worth while to know, that the nations of the world wrote many other books, which are included in their systems of sacred books, but not in our hands.” To which he adds, “They say that some of these are found in the Chaldee, some in the Arabic, and some in the Greek language.”

R. Azariah ascribed the book called the Wisdom of Solomon to Philo; and R. Gedaliah, in speaking of the same book, says, “That if Solomon ever wrote it, it must have been in the Syriac language, to send it to some of the kings in the remotest parts of the East. “But,” says he, “Ezra put his hand only to those books which were published by the prophets, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and written in the sacred language; and our wise men prudently and deliberately resolved to sanction none, but such as were established and confirmed by him.”

The book called Ecclesiasticus, said to be written by the son of Sirach, is expressly numbered among apocryphal books in the Talmud. “In the book of the Son of Sirach, it is forbidden to be read.”

Manasseh Ben Israel has this observation, “Those things which are alleged from a verse in Ecclesiasticus are nothing to the purpose, because that is an apocryphal book.” Another of their writers says, “The book of the son of Sirach is added to our twenty-four sacred books by the Romans.” This book also they call extraneous, which some of the Jews prohibit to be 44read. With what face then can the Romanists pretend that this book was added to the Canon not long before the time of Josephus?

“Baruch,” says one of their learned men, “is received by Christians,” (i. e. Romanists,) “but not by us.”

Of Tobit, it is said in Zemach David, “Know, then, that this book of Tobias is one of those which Christians join with the Hagiographa.” A little afterwards, it is said, “Know then, that Tobit, which is among us in the Hebrew tongue, was translated from Latin into Hebrew .” The same writer affirms of the history of Susannah, “That it is received by Christians but not by us.”

 

[Nancie_Lew]

All the dissendents appeal to the opinion of Jerome.

You left out a couple of people.

Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book.

Than there’s Athanasius the fourth -century bishop of Alexandria. He was the first Christian author to advocate a New Testament canon of twenty-seven books. This comes in a letter that Athanasius wrote in 367 CE— over three centuries after the writings of Paul, our earliest Christian author. As the Alexandrian bishop, Athanasius sent an annual letter to the churches in Egypt under his jurisdiction. The purpose of these letters was to set the date of Easter, which was not established well in advance, as in our modern calendars, but was announced each year by the church authorities. Athanasius used these annual “Festal” letters to provide pastoral advice and counsel to his churches. In his famous thirty-ninth Festal letter of 367 CE he indicates, as part of his advice, the books that his churches were to accept as canonical Scripture. He first lists the books of the “Old Testament, ” including the Old Testament Apocrypha (which were to be read only as devotional literature, not as canonical authorities). Then he names exactly the twenty-seven books that we now have as the New Testament, indicating that “in these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them.”

I don’t know how more obvious Athanasius and his “Festal” letter could be regarding the Apocrypha, yet someone like Catholic apologist Mark Mark Bonocore elaborates on the possible meaning of St. Athanasius excluding the Deuteros from the canon itself:

“WHAT POSSIBLE MEANING”? It can’t be more plainer than the nose on your face…Bonocore. Since Athanasius was the Alexandrian Bishop I would think he would have an inside track on the correct Canon writings of the Jews more so than any other Church leader. He would have known about the original Hebrew texts that did not include the Apocrypha and how Hellenistic philosophy was corrupting both Jewish and Christian religious beliefs.

 

[Janet_S]

You left out a couple of people.

Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book.

Than there’s Athanasius the fourth -century bishop of Alexandria. He was the first Christian author to advocate a New Testament canon of twenty-seven books. This comes in a letter that Athanasius wrote in 367 CE— over three centuries after the writings of Paul, our earliest Christian author. As the Alexandrian bishop, Athanasius sent an annual letter to the churches in Egypt under his jurisdiction. The purpose of these letters was to set the date of Easter, which was not established well in advance, as in our modern calendars, but was announced each year by the church authorities. Athanasius used these annual “Festal” letters to provide pastoral advice and counsel to his churches. In his famous thirty-ninth Festal letter of 367 CE he indicates, as part of his advice, the books that his churches were to accept as canonical Scripture. He first lists the books of the “Old Testament, ” including the Old Testament Apocrypha (which were to be read only as devotional literature, not as canonical authorities). Then he names exactly the twenty-seven books that we now have as the New Testament, indicating that “in these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them.”

I don’t know how more obvious Athanasius and his “Festal” letter could be regarding the Apocrypha, yet someone like Catholic apologist Mark Mark Bonocore elaborates on the possible meaning of St. Athanasius excluding the Deuteros from the canon itself:

“WHAT POSSIBLE MEANING”? It can’t be more plainer than the nose on your face…Bonocore. Since Athanasius was the Alexandrian Bishop I would think he would have an inside track on the correct Canon writings of the Jews more so than any other Church leader. He would have known about the original Hebrew texts that did not include the Apocrypha and how Hellenistic philosophy was corrupting both Jewish and Christian religious beliefs.

Athanasius is a Catholic saint and a doctor of the CC.

I mentioned this in a previous post, but I’ll repeat it. Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 has a different OT canon from the modern Protestant OT canon. It excludes Esther (which the Protestants accept) and it includes Baruch (which the Protestants reject).

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-93.htm
4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second6 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and7 the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Hippon and Carthage were not binding! It sure seems that Seripando, Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes, knew this decision wasn’t binding and didn’t feel they needed to follow this "judgment of the church.

Cardinal Cajetan, was known as the oracle of the church of Rome. In his commentaries on the Bible, he gives us this as the rule of the church—“That those books which were canonical with Jerome should be so with us; and that those which were not received as canonical by him should be considered as excluded by us.” And he says, “The church is much indebted to this Father for distinguishing between the books which are canonical and those which are not, for thus he has freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who otherwise might say that we had framed a new Canon for ourselves.” For this reason he would write no commentaries on these apocryphal books; “for,” says he, “Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the additions to Esther are all excluded from the Canon as insufficient to prove any matter of faith, though they may be read for the edifying of the people.”

 

[Nancie_Lew]

I have yet see you post decrees that null and void the Council of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo.

In regards to the third council of Carthage, what authority did a provincial synod have to determine anything for the whole church, respecting the Canon? There is no mention made of Pope Boniface, as living at that time. He wasn’tpope until more than twenty years afterwards; in which time, three other popes occupied the Seat of Peterr; so that this Canon could not have been formed by the third council of Carthage. In some copies it is inserted, as the fourteenth of the seventh council of Carthage.

 

[Wisdom]

You left out a couple of people.

Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book.

Actually St Justin (who quotes from the Septugient) argues explcitly in his dialogue with Trypho (who quoted the Hebrew OT) the Jew that the Septugeint which includes the dueteros is the only reliable text of the Old Testament. Where it differs from the Hebrew text, as read and interpreted by the Jews, the Jews (he says) have corrupted the text so as to obscure the scriptures plain prophetic testimony to Jesus as the Christ.

" 'There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men, neither reverencing nor fearing any man, not influenced by a desire for glory, but speaking those things alone which they saw and which they heard, being filled with the Holy Spirit. Their writings are still extant, and he who has read them is very much helped in his knowledge of the beginning and end of things, and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them. For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief; and those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them, although, indeed, they were entitled to credit on account of the miracles which they performed, since they both glorified the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ [sent] by Him: which, indeed, the false prophets, who are filled with the lying unclean spirit, neither have done nor do, but venture to work certain wonderful deeds for the purpose of astonishing men, and glorify the spirits and demons of error…"If you spoke these words, Trypho, and then kept silence in simplicity and with no ill intent, neither repeating what goes before nor adding what comes after, you must be forgiven; but if [you have done so] because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage, in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself. Dialoge with Trypho 7,65

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states about St Justin. **“St. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews’, and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the Canon; its independence of the Synagogue in this respect.” **

St Justin refers to Wisdom 2:24 in his first apology (our writings is unique to the dueterocanon of the Christians and not the Jews). The connection of the serpent with the Devil is not found in the Old Testament but is adumbrated in Wisdom 2:24.

For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. (But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it. Wis 2:24)
1st Apology 28 St Justin

So Justin certainly argues for the Septugient being scripture and many many times refers and alludes to the deuterocanonicals. May I remind you that St Justin does not directly quote any of the Pauline Epistles either. So by your test none of Pauls works are scripture either because they are not quoted by St Justin. Stop being a hypcocrite and at least apply the same test to the books you have in your Bible that we have in our Bible. Most certainly St Justin thougt the dueteros and the works of Paul were scripture he need not make direct quotes (a protestant tradition of man for caoncity, a test many of the books of their bible does not pass) to think a work is scripture. When you make such a bold assertion be prepared to back it up. Once again a protestant makes false charge and makes no citation nor have any knowledge of the church father for an intelligient dialogue he simply cuts and paste and runs. You are not interested in truth but in playing games. Well you weak game is exposed and you lost.

 

[Wisdom]

I mentioned this in a previous post, but I’ll repeat it. Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 has a different OT canon from the modern Protestant OT canon. It excludes Esther (which the Protestants accept) and it includes Baruch (which the Protestants reject).

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-93.htm
.

Of course he is Catholic and conisitent with how we view the dueteros before the african councils. Not only does he refer to Baruch as in the canon he refers to the dueteros to be read in the church and says in his personal writings they are scripture. He merely is quoted a set of books be beleives as already canonized as scripture, he then list other books being used in the church that potentially could be scripture remember none of the influential african church council had yet taken place yet. A big point here is to be made here he does not refer to these books as apocrapha something assumed by protestant apologist in fact he says they are not apocrapha something the protestant today denies, he simply says they are not in the canon yet and in some ways catholics agree with this as we call it the dueterocanon as opposed to the protocanon.

Anyways he quotes from the Septugient regularly and says they are scripture. Baruch, Catholic Septugient Daniel, Sirach, Tobit, and Wisdom etc etc. Doesn’t sound like he is siding with Protestants to me. Unless you cut and paste and run and don’t do your homework.

“[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, ‘Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;’[Heb 1:3] and again, ‘For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;’[Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides lsrael, He says, ‘Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;’[Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, ‘They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters’[Jer 2:13]”
Athanasius,Defense of the Nicene Faith,2:12(A.D. 351),in NPNF2,IV:158

" And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,’ and ‘By whom He made the ages,’[Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, ‘The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth[2];’[Is 40:28] and Susanna said, ‘O Everlasting God[3];’[Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, ‘I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,’ and shortly after, ‘My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;’[Baruch 4:20,22]"
Athanasius,Discourses Against the Arians,1:4(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:313

“*t is written that ‘all things were made through the Word,’ and ‘without Him was not made one thing,’[John 1:3] and again, ‘One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,’[1 Cor 8:9] and ‘in Him all things consist,’[Col 1:17] it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, ‘O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,’[Daniel 3:57-Three Youths]”
Athanasius,Discourses Against the Arians,2:71(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:387

“Daniel said to Astyages, ‘I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh;’[Daniel 14:5-Bel & the Dragon]”
Athanasius,Discourses Against the Arians,3:30(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:410

“But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, ‘For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’[1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a ‘multitude of wise men’[Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for ‘a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’[Prov 14:16] and ‘through wisdom is a house builded;’[Prov 24] and the Preacher says, ‘A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine;’ and he blames those who are headstrong thus, ‘Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’[Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, ‘He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,’[Sirach 1:8,9]”
Athanasius,Discourses Against the Arians,2:79(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:391

“[F]or it is written of the other, ‘The foolish person will speak foolishness;’ [Is 32:6 LXX] but of these, ‘Ask counsel of all that are wise.’[Tobit 4:18]”
Athanasius,Defense before Constantius,17(A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:244

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-93.htm*

 

[Wisdom]

Hellenistic philosophy was corrupting both Jewish and Christian religious beliefs.

Your talking about the same Hellenistic philosophy that even Protestant scholars admit is found in the writings of St John and St Paul? Gee lets take them out of our NT now and while your at it you do know the entire NT was written in Greek and if being written in Greek dismisses admission into the canon then we don’t have a new testament. This is the problem when your restorting to the Jews who rejected Christ as the criteria for what is the Word of God. Whether wisdom is Greek or Jewish does not matter to the Christians as St Paul says there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ Jesus. So make up your mind are you a Jew whom all things gentile including the written language of greek somehow corrupting scripture or are you a christian where truth indeed can be found in scripture written in Greek. Also a big hole in your theory is to be found that in recent years we have found several books of the dueteros ie Tobit, Sirach, Macabees written in the origianal Hebrew tongue thus proving they were Jewish in the origianl inspriation like the Book of Sirach says it is simply being rewritten in Greek as the origainl author was a Jew. Its simply bizarre to be going to post-temple Jews who rejected Jesus for any sort of canon something St Justin Pointed out by the way but since you don’t his works beyond the cut and paste of what your aplogist provides for you, you remain in the dark and ignorant of the truth, keep on showing your lack of knowledge with your cut and paste skills it sure takes a great talent on your part.

 

[Mannyfit75]

In regards to the third council of Carthage, what authority did a provincial synod have to determine anything for the whole church, respecting the Canon? There is no mention made of Pope Boniface, as living at that time. He wasn’tpope until more than twenty years afterwards; in which time, three other popes occupied the Seat of Peterr; so that this Canon could not have been formed by the third council of Carthage. In some copies it is inserted, as the fourteenth of the seventh council of Carthage.

That is a lie and you know it. He was the Pope, and the Council of Carthage and Hippo are binding and they were also affirmed in the Council of Florence around 100 yrs before the Council of Trent.

Believe me if you find the any Bible translation prior to Trent, all the Bible had the 73 OT and 27 NT. This is Truth, this is History. If they were not binding the Church would not use them in the liturgy.

I am fed up with Non-Catholics trying to discredit the Books and use opinions and not decrees.

 

[kaycee]

That is a lie and you know it. He was the Pope, and the Council of Carthage and Hippo are binding and they were also affirmed in the Council of Florence around 100 yrs before the Council of Trent.

Believe me if you find the any Bible translation prior to Trent, all the Bible had the 73 OT and 27 NT. This is Truth, this is History. If they were not binding the Church would not use them in the liturgy.

I am fed up with Non-Catholics trying to discredit the Books and use opinions and not decrees.

If Carthage and Hippo were binding, why were all the learned Doctors of the Church who espoused Jeromes view (Gregory the Great, Strabo, John of Salisbury, Tostado, Cajetan, Seripando…) not anathematized?

You are clearly in error concerning Carthage and Hippo being binding! Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia is against your position.

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books…According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent…The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390).

**Again, history reveals that NONE of the Doctors of the Church that Followed JEROME are ever warned, punished, anathematized, or excommunicated for thumbing their nose at Carthage and Hippo.

Can a Catholic today say that the Deuts are NOT scripture and still be in compliance with dogmatic faith?**

 

[MrS]

Can a Catholic today say that the Deuts are NOT scripture and still be in compliance with dogmatic faith?

Why would we want to…

[1] we are not protesting the Church

[2] we are not inventing our own Doctrine which would/might require a different set of canonical books.

 

[Janet_S]

In regards to the third council of Carthage, what authority did a provincial synod have to determine anything for the whole church, respecting the Canon? There is no mention made of Pope Boniface, as living at that time. He wasn’tpope until more than twenty years afterwards; in which time, three other popes occupied the Seat of Peterr; so that this Canon could not have been formed by the third council of Carthage. In some copies it is inserted, as the fourteenth of the seventh council of Carthage.

Nancie, there were various councils held in Carthage. In the documents of the Council of Carthage (AD 419) , Pope Boniface is mentioned.

Pope Boniface I was elected December 28 AD 418 and died September 4 AD 422. Therefore, he was alive during this council. You can look at the documents on the following website. The 7 deuterocanonical books are included as canonical Scripture. These council canons were ratified by Pope Boniface I.

newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ii. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ii. books.
Macchabees, ii. books.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

 

[Wisdom]

**Again, history reveals that NONE of the Doctors of the Church that Followed JEROME are ever warned, punished, anathematized, or excommunicated for thumbing their nose at Carthage and Hippo.

Can a Catholic today say that the Deuts are NOT scripture and still be in compliance with dogmatic faith?**

Of course you misrepresent the views of some of those people did you read the website which addressed Gregory the Great (and most of the others you present were in the East and not under the authority of the councils but we can see through history that the view of the Septugient being in the canon eventually became their ruling as well as the Orthodox accept these books in their canon as well) of course not because it’s not William Webster. And you repeat the same mistakes over and over.

Hippo and Carthage were binding in the West as the regular fedei the regular rule of faith for all bibles were to follow that canon and that they have continued in the catholic west till this very day. Of course they did not attach the threat of anathema as they were not ecumenical council that does not mean the dissenters simply thumbed their nose at the church, those who did dissent gave their view per the opinions per Jerome they never appealed to the the authority of the church and its councils as they knew they was no support there this way they could say this is not my opinion but the opinion per Jerome. It was always a way to tap dance around the issue. You see the same thing today regarding the regular fedei of humane vitae and artificial birth control some dissenter will quote another cleric or theologian who disagreed with the church but they cannot quote the findings of the church as they have no support there. You inability to recognize the finer points of the situation had you going in circles repeating the same mistakes over and over. Its almost as if you have an inability to think for yourselves and are hand at feet taking orders from William Webster and like a clone cut and paste the same arguments without end and without critical thinking.

The fact is even secular institutions such as Oxford have come to agree with the findings of the Councils.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church now states:
The Septugient:"In the early Church the LXX was regarded as the standard form of the OT, from which the NT writers normally quoted and it was the basis of the Old Latin versions. (Before Jerome’s Vulgate) since this is not an article from William Webster let me translate the Bible of the early church which seems to include the apostles themselves was the Septugient and the larger canon and this did not change till Jerome’s private opinion in the West.

 

[Janet_S]

If Carthage and Hippo were binding, why were all the learned Doctors of the Church who espoused Jeromes view (Gregory the Great, Strabo, John of Salisbury, Tostado, Cajetan, Seripando…) not anathematized?

You are clearly in error concerning Carthage and Hippo being binding! Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia is against your position.

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books…According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent…The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390).

**Again, history reveals that NONE of the Doctors of the Church that Followed JEROME are ever warned, punished, anathematized, or excommunicated for thumbing their nose at Carthage and Hippo.

Can a Catholic today say that the Deuts are NOT scripture and still be in compliance with dogmatic faith?**

Here are a few comments and questions on the above post:

–Of the people mentioned in the first paragraph, only Gregory the Great is a Doctor of the Church. And, to remind you, this is G Michuta’s post about Gregory:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2011309&postcount=92

–Do you know of anyone ever who was anathematized for espousing Jerome’s view on the canon?

–It seems silly to me that you keep insisting the African Church councils were not binding on the Church but Jeromes opinion was.

–Make up your mind, it’s either/or:
Either the CC added 7 books to the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent or the CC added 73 books to the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent. It can’t be both. Which do you think it was?

–Can you answer this question from VociMike
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2010488&postcount=77

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…

 

[Wisdom]

Here are a few comments and questions on the above post:

–Of the people mentioned in the first paragraph, only Gregory the Great is a Doctor of the Church. And, to remind you, this is G Michuta’s post about Gregory:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2011309&postcount=92

Of course but Kaycee is not going to read anything espoused by catholics who know Gregory inside and out they going to go to William Webster hack apologist. Gregory the Great did the exact same thing Origen did when he said this is the canon according to the Jews then in his own rightings he affirms the canon of the catholic church which included the dueteros you see the same thing with Gregory this is the canon according to Jerome then you read in his own rightings saying Macabees is scripture as you pointed out and in some other writings he says this.

“For of him it is written, But by envy of the devil death entered into the world’[Wisdom 2:24]”
Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Pastoral Care,10(ante A.D. 604),in NPNF2,XII:32

“[L]et them hear what is written, ‘Give to every man that asketh of thee’[Luke 6:30]. Lest they should give something, however little to those on whom they ought to bestow nothing at all, let them hear what is written. ‘Give to the good man, and receive not a sinner: do well to him that is lowly, and give not to the ungodly’[Sirach 12:4]. And again, ‘Set out thy bread and wine on the burial of the just, but eat and drink not thereof with sinners’ [Tobit 4:17].”
Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Pastoral Care,20(ante A.D. 604),in NPNF2,XII:45

Oh yeah sounds protestant to me… NOT!

 

[Mannyfit75]

If Carthage and Hippo were binding, why were all the learned Doctors of the Church who espoused Jeromes view (Gregory the Great, Strabo, John of Salisbury, Tostado, Cajetan, Seripando…) not anathematized?

You are clearly in error concerning Carthage and Hippo being binding! Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia is against your position.

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books…According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent…The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390).

**Again, history reveals that NONE of the Doctors of the Church that Followed JEROME are ever warned, punished, anathematized, or excommunicated for thumbing their nose at Carthage and Hippo.

Can a Catholic today say that the Deuts are NOT scripture and still be in compliance with dogmatic faith?**

All your information is incorrect. St. Jerome recanted PERIOD.

Second, why do you refer to OPINIONS rather than the Church or the Magisterium Decree.

Council of Hippo and Carthage are binding. You Still have not produce an Bible that did not have the Deutrocanonical Books prior to Council of Trent.

 

[kaycee]

Of course but Kaycee is not going to read anything espoused by catholics who know Gregory inside and out they going to go to William Webster hack apologist. Gregory the Great did the exact same thing Origen did when he said this is the canon according to the Jews then in his own rightings he affirms the canon of the catholic church which included the dueteros you see the same thing with Gregory this is the canon according to Jerome then you read in his own rightings saying Macabees is scripture …

In his commentary on the book of Job he stated that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical:

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46).”

This IS what Gregory wrote in HIS commentary. To insinuate that these are not his words, but he is just telling us what Jerome thinks, is baseless wild conjecture and spin. It is apparent to any non biased reader that Gregory plainly states that he thinks 1 Maccabees is not canonical. There is nothing to indicate that he is quoting Jerome and does not believe him! He plainly states that “WE are not acting irregularly”. Are the rules of english suspended for catholic apologists when factual evidence cannot be spun?

as you pointed out and in some other writings he says this.

“For of him it is written, But by envy of the devil death entered into the world’[Wisdom 2:24]”
Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Pastoral Care,10(ante A.D. 604),in NPNF2,XII:32

“[L]et them hear what is written, ‘Give to every man that asketh of thee’[Luke 6:30]. Lest they should give something, however little to those on whom they ought to bestow nothing at all, let them hear what is written. ‘Give to the good man, and receive not a sinner: do well to him that is lowly, and give not to the ungodly’[Sirach 12:4]. And again, ‘Set out thy bread and wine on the burial of the just, but eat and drink not thereof with sinners’ [Tobit 4:17].”
Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Pastoral Care,20(ante A.D. 604),in NPNF2,XII:45

Oh yeah sounds protestant to me… NOT!

Quotes from other apocryphal books have what to do with Gregory’s thinking 1 Maccabees is not part of the canon???

 

[Mannyfit75]

The following ECF recited the Maccabees.

St. Clement of Alexandria
St. Hippolytus
Tertullian
Origen
St. Cyrian

The following NT recited Maccabees as well.

Hebrews:
1:3 sites Wisdom 7:26
11:35 sites 2 Mach. 6:18, 7:42
James:
1:19 sites Sirach 5:13

St. Luke:
6:24 sites Ecclus. 31:8
12:16 sites Ecclus. 11:19
14:12 sites Tobit 4:7
17:3 sites Ecclus. 19:13
18:1 sites Ecclus. 18:22

St. Matthew:
6:14 sites Ecclus. 28:2, 3 & 5
7:12 sites Tobit 4:16
18:15 sites Ecclus. 19:13
25:36 sites Ecclus. 7:39
27:39-42 sites Wisdom 2:18

St. John
6:36 sites Ecclus. 24:29
10:22 sites 1 Mach. 4:56 & 59
Acts of the Apostles:
10:34 sites Ecclus. 35:15

1 Corinthians:
2:16 sites Widsom 9:13 & Isaiah 40:13)
10:26 sites Ecclus. 17:31 (& Psalms 23)
15:32 sites Wisdom 2:6 (& Isaiah 22:13)
Ephesians:
6:13-17 sites Wisdom 5:8-20

 

[kaycee]

The following ECF recited the Maccabees.

St. Clement of Alexandria
St. Hippolytus
Tertullian
Origen
St. Cyrian

This relates to Gregory the Great in what way?