For Christians who reject the deuterocanonical books (apocrypha)

[Per_Crucem]

You mean the Pharisees (condemned seven-fold by Christ) didn’t use them. The same Pharisees who demanded that Christ be put to death. Now, that’s a good source to follow.

I don’t see that as even remotely relevant to the deuterocanonical books. The Pharisees also followed the Torah - should we not consider it inspired because the Pharisees did?

 

[Robyn_p]

1. Luther never had authority to formulate a canon, therefore he never did. He did, however, have the Catholic liberty and privilege to question books of the canon as did every Catholic prior to Trent, and there were numerous who did. In fact, there were those at Trent who did argue against them, IIRC.
2. Luther’s opinion of them do not constitute a canon, but instead his opinion of them. No Lutheran, or anyone else that I know of, is obliged to agree with Luther about them.

Jon

I didn’t realize that Jon, thank you for clarifying.

So, from what I’ve gathered so far from the different answers in this thread, it seems the main reason Protestants today reject the deuterocanon is because of rabbinic tradition. Is that correct?

 

[po18guy]

Many Lutheran parishes use them in the lectionary. Additionally, reference to them is apparent in our hymnody.

Jon

The children of a lesser god.

 

[JonNC]

The children of a lesser god.

Nope. Same God. Same grace.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

I don’t see that as even remotely relevant to the deuterocanonical books. The Pharisees also followed the Torah - should we not consider it inspired because the Pharisees did?

Oh, please! We are talking of those who specifically rejected Christ and insisted on His death. I think it is fairly clear that, after Christ’s sacrifice, the Hebrew canon was discussed and either explicitly or implicitly agreed on. Further, the Deuterocanonical books (which appear to include Daniel) are specifically and prophetically anticipatory of Christ.

As a rhetorical question, I wonder why no one from either Catholic or Orthodox has felt the need over the past 2,000 years to consult with Hebrew authorities for a pre-Cchristian canon?

 

[po18guy]

Nope. Same God. Same grace.

Jon

Full disclosure: ML/Jean Calvin et al did not believe them to be the equal of the other scriptures.

I ponder the following partial content of the DC books:

1. The restoration of Judaism to Israel in time for Christ to be born under the law so as to fulfill the law.
2. The cleansing and re-dedication of the Temple - Hanukkah
3. The resurrection.
4. Eternal life.
5. Seven angels who appear before the throne of God.
6. Israel being delivered from evil by the action os a single woman.
7. Clear prophecy of Christ.
8. Prayers for the souls of the dead
9. The most advanced angelology in the entire OT

…and I wonder: If God did not inspire man to write of these things, who did?

 

[Robyn_p]

So Catholics are the Protestants of Orthodoxy?

Superficially you could say that, because we reject books they accept and Protestants reject books we accept. But I don’t really think that’s a fair comparison.

Protestants don’t believe in an infallible authority outside Scripture, so there is no way to officially determine what is or isn’t canonical. From what I’ve gathered on this thread, it’s up to the individual to decide what is or isn’t inspired, since there really is no set canon. (That’s how I understood Jon NC’s remark at least.)

Catholics on the other hand share with the Orthodox the belief that there is an authority outside of Scripture that can determine the canon. We differ on what that authority is, but we don’t deny it exists. That’s a big difference from Protestantism.

 

[Robyn_p]

True, Jose, and Luther falls into that same category.

Then again, the Church as a whole has never agreed on a canon.

Jon

When you say the Church as a whole, what do you mean? Do you mean all the baptized?

 

[benhur]

]You have just described the reformers! Men who thought themselves superior to the God-given authority of the Church.

Equal or as one for all etc and what I have described has nothing to do with being superior. But you are right .There are dangers to the extreme of individual feeling superior as there is for the other extreme of the Church being superior. Christ in us is not inferior to Christ’s Body, the communion of saints, the Church.

You have read Acts 15? That first authoritative Church decision is the only reason why you do not have to find a Rabbi with a scalpel.

The first council left no one out,all brethren were included. They did not Lord over .Why, because they were nice and humble ? Or because they realized the integrity of Christ in any person ? At least both

Truthfully, it would do you great good to actually read the Deuterocanonical books.

Understand. I even like the letter of Rome (Clement) to the Corinthians. I have read some. Some is good and some a bit off-beat, with a slight historical inaccuracy in one.

But, be warned! While he could not bring himself to be Catholic, he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy after realizing the error of protestantism

Yes both sides of the debate have their cheerleaders.

 

[po18guy]

But you are right .There are dangers to the extreme of individual feeling superior as there is for the other extreme of the Church being superior.

Christ founded the Church, which is His Body on earth. That, according to Christ, is the supreme authority. “He who hears you hears me.” “If he will not listen even to them, take it to the Church” The Church is supreme on earth because that is precisely how Christ founded it.

Christ in us is not inferior to Christ’s Body, the communion of saints, the Church. The first council left no one out,all brethren were included. They did not Lord over .Why, because they were nice and humble ? Or because they realized the integrity of Christ in any person ?

The “Apostles and Elders” were gathered. By the Holy Spirit (as our Lord promised His Church) they made the decision for all Christians. Remember that some Christians (the Judaizers) wanted circumcision. They were in error, right? They were not in the council, as only Paul, Barnabas and a “few others” went to Jerusalem. The idea of a democratic “all equal” church is nowhere in the scriptures. “Neither Jew nor Greek” refers to all who are called to redemption in Christ, not that all will lead. If all lead, who follows?

I even like the letter of Rome (Clement) to the Corinthians. I have read some. Some is good and some a bit off-beat, with a slight historical inaccuracy in one.

Slight historical inaccuracy does not affect the validity of the letter or of its message. If that is the case, we must throw the entire bible away!

Yes both sides of the debate have their cheerleaders.

Ah, but both are authoritative Churches, sharing a common root, an unbroken line of succession tracing directly to Christ, a ministerial priesthood, seven Sacraments as instituted by Christ, and the vast majority of beliefs in common. That is why much effort is spent on re-unification.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox have, use, always had and always used the seven books in question. In answer to the German rebellion, they are now known as the Deuterocanonical books. In the east, they are simply sacred scripture. Always have been and always will be. That is a point worth pondering.

If you read the Deuterocanonical books and other early letters, great! I wish all would do so. One example of many: The Archangel Raphael in Tobit. He identifies himself as “one of the seven who stand before the throne of God.” This was written 200 years before Christ. Yet, we know from Revelation (Apocalypse) that there are, indeed, seven who stand before God’s throne.

If God did not inspire the author of Tobit, who did?

 

[JonNC]

Full disclosure: ML/Jean Calvin et al did not believe them to be the equal of the other scriptures.

I ponder the following partial content of the DC books:

1. The restoration of Judaism to Israel in time for Christ to be born under the law so as to fulfill the law.
2. The cleansing and re-dedication of the Temple - Hanukkah
3. The resurrection.
4. Eternal life.
5. Seven angels who appear before the throne of God.
6. Israel being delivered from evil by the action os a single woman.
7. Clear prophecy of Christ.
8. Prayers for the souls of the dead
9. The most advanced angelology in the entire OT

…and I wonder: If God did not inspire man to write of these things, who did?

Father Martin and Calvin were late-comers when it comes to questioning the inspiration of the DC books. There were numerous, and some quite highly respected, and indeed some were among the fathers of the Church.
A couple of points:

1. To ascribe this as some kind of Reformation era novelty just doesn’t fit the history of the DC’s.
2. I’m frankly not convinced they, including Luther, were right, in part for some of the reasons you list above. But up until Trent, Catholics had the privilege to question aspects of the canon, even the NT antilegomena.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

When you say the Church as a whole, what do you mean? Do you mean all the baptized?

No. I mean all of the patriarchates. The fact is that Holy Orthodoxy continues to this day to have canons that do not match the 73 book canon of the western Church, but are in fact usually have more books.
The point is that the local synods at Hippo, Carthage, Rome, etc. were not binding on the whole Church, and were never considered so.
Scroll to the chart at the bottom of the link.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

Oh, please! We are talking of those who specifically rejected Christ and insisted on His death. I think it is fairly clear that, after Christ’s sacrifice, the Hebrew canon was discussed and either explicitly or implicitly agreed on. Further, the Deuterocanonical books (which appear to include Daniel) are specifically and prophetically anticipatory of Christ.

So does the rest of the Old Testament. Do you honestly believe the Pharisees sat around and said “Hisssssss, we must get rid of Wisdom, Tobit, and the Maccabees, because they foretell Jesus!.. But let’s keep Isaiah 53…that one is pretty.”

 

[cajunhillbilly]

No. I mean all of the patriarchates. The fact is that Holy Orthodoxy continues to this day to have canons that do not match the 73 book canon of the western Church, but are in fact usually have more books.
The point is that the local synods at Hippo, Carthage, Rome, etc. were not binding on the whole Church, and were never considered so.
Scroll to the chart at the bottom of the link.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Jon

interesting chart

 

[po18guy]

Father Martin and Calvin were late-comers when it comes to questioning the inspiration of the DC books. There were numerous, and some quite highly respected, and indeed some were among the fathers of the Church.
A couple of points:

1. To ascribe this as some kind of Reformation era novelty just doesn’t fit the history of the DC’s.
2. I’m frankly not convinced they, including Luther, were right, in part for some of the reasons you list above. But up until Trent, Catholics had the privilege to question aspects of the canon, even the NT antilegomena.

Jon

In retrospect, the Church certainly could/should have moved more quickly on this matter, but certain occurrences in Germany kind of brought it to a head. The history of DC use by both Catholic and Orthodox probably guided, to some extent, those who were uncertain. Their composition in Greek put off quite a few, but then Luke was a Gentile and wrote scripture. While some indeed see the DC content as hidden, “big picture” types have no such difficulty. Time has revealed that, in the New Covenant, there are new rules.

 

[Bradthecatholic]

So according to you the Eastern Canon is closed, but they still like to read extra books because of tradition. Do I have this?

Now, you’re doing this just to annoy us. And I never said it was “closed” it’s just not the “official” canon. They can still keep their traditions.

You seem to like to deny simple history, and you also seem to like twisting what we say in order to make us look stupid.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Just for clarification here, although the DC books were questioned by early Church Fathers and rightly so.

The fact remains that many of these early Church Fathers were made Catholic Saints who never relabeled or rejected the DC books from the already biblical cannon which included the original DC books.

The rejection and relabeling of the DC books came from the late Protestant reformation, never from those who questioned the authenticity of the DC books from antiquity.

Peace be with you

 

[dronald]

Now, you’re doing this just to annoy us. And I never said it was “closed” it’s just not the “official” canon. They can still keep their traditions.

You seem to like to deny simple history, and you also seem to like twisting what we say in order to make us look stupid.

So when was the Canon closed for all Churches? The entire point I’m making is that it wasn’t until Trent, yet Catholics bring up Hippo and Carthage.

I assure you I’m not trying to be annoying.

 

[JonNC]

Just for clarification here, although the DC books were questioned by early Church Fathers and rightly so.

The fact remains that many of these early Church Fathers were made Catholic Saints who never relabeled or rejected the DC books from the already biblical cannon which included the original DC books.

The rejection and relabeling of the DC books came from the late Protestant reformation, never from those who questioned the authenticity of the DC books from antiquity.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel,
Was it not Eusebius who used the term Antilegomena. True, not the OT, but I hope you see my point.

Jon

 

[pablope]

So when was the Canon closed for all Churches? The entire point I’m making is that it wasn’t until Trent, yet Catholics bring up Hippo and Carthage.

I assure you I’m not trying to be annoying.

I think this will answer your query and make it clear:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. … Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. … By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that the letter of Pope Innocent I on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.”

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.