How did we know the Early Christian Church used the Deuterocanonical Books?

[hawkeye125646]

James 1:13: No one experiencing temptation should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one.
**Sirach 15:11-13:**Say not: “It was God’s doing that I fell away”; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: “It was he who set me astray”; for he has no need of wicked man. Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him.

James 1:19: Know this, my dear brothers: everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath
Sirach 5:11: Be swift to hear, but slow to answer.

James 3:5: In the same way the tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions. Consider how small a fire can set a huge forest ablaze.
Sirach 28:12: If you blow upon a spark, it quickens into flame, if you spit on it, it dies out; yet both you do with your mouth!

In the above, both passages use the distinct imagery of the kindling of a potentially destructive fire.

James 3:10: From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. This need not be so, my brothers.
Sirach 5:15: Honor and dishonor through talking! A man’s tongue can be his downfall.

James 5:3: your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days.
Sirach 12:11: Even though he acts humbly and peaceably toward you, take care to be on your guard against him. Rub him as one polishes a brazen mirror, and you will find that there is still corrosion.
Sirach 29:9-10: Because of the precept, help the needy, and in their want, do not send them away empty-handed. Spend your money for your brother and friend, and hide it not under a stone to perish;

In this final section of allusions, the verb that the NAB translates as “have corroded,” is used in the Greek OT only in Sirach 12:11. The noun translated “corrosion” ( ho ios) in James 5:3 is not found anywhere else in the NT, yet the same word in its verbal form is found in Sirach 29. The illustration of rust corroding gold and silver appears nowhere else in the Greek OT or the NT except these two books. Protestant scholars such as Metzger and Edersheim have acknowledged that James borrowed heavily from Sirach. You may ignore one or two allusions, but so many in a five chapter epistle? Read through Sirach, the many passages on the tongue. They are virtually indistinguishable from James.

Even Paul used the Deuterocanonical books:

Romans 1: 18 The retribution of God from heaven is being revealed against the ungodliness and injustice of human beings who in their injustice hold back the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them: 20 ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse: 21 they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened. 22 While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid 23 that they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an imitation, for the image of a mortal human being, or of birds, or animals, or crawling things. 24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies- 25 because they exchanged God’s truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Wisdom 1:1 Yes, naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and who, from good things seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is, or, by studying the works, have not recognised the Artificer. 2 Fire, however, or wind, or the swift air, the sphere of the stars, impetuous water, heaven’s lamps, are what they have held to be the gods who govern the world. 3 If, charmed by their beauty, they have taken these for gods, let them know how much the Master of these excels them, since he was the very source of beauty that created them. 4 And if they have been impressed by their power and energy, let them deduce from these how much mightier is he that has formed them, 5 since through the grandeur and beauty of the creatures we may, by analogy, contemplate their Author. 6 Small blame, however, attaches to them, for perhaps they go astray only in their search for God and their eagerness to find him; 7 familiar with his works, they investigate them and fall victim to appearances, seeing so much beauty. 8 But even so, they have no excuse: 9 if they are capable of acquiring enough knowledge to be able to investigate the world, how have they been so slow to find its Master? 10 But wretched are they, with their hopes set on dead things, who have given the title of gods to human artefacts, gold or silver, skilfully worked, figures of animals, or useless stone, carved by some hand long ago.

 

[Publisher]

We know because the members of the early church for the most part were Greek speaking people…the LXX was written in Greek and used by the Diaspora…when the Temple was destroyed and most Christians were Gentile, the LXX was used as they did not speak or write Hebrew…the duetcanonicals were part of the LXX…when the struggle between Gentile Christians and Jews for the authentic repersentation and continuation of “Judaism”, “Christianity” became a separate and distinct religion and moved away from it’s Jewish roots and became distinctly “Christian”.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Individual books of the Bible were written on scrolls. Codices are simply compilations of scrolls into book form. They are closest thing in the ancient world to an actual Bible, and they were quite large, and so only used in liturgical worship to be read in the Churches. The earliest ones found, as shown, were from the fourth century and contained the Deuteros…

Actually, Codex Vaticanus, the oldest virtually complete Greek Bible, lacks all the books of Maccabees and Codex Sinaiticus lacks 2nd Maccabees, as your earlier post points out.

Another little side note on his “Textus Receptus,” is that it is simply a collection of Greek texts originally used as the basis for the German Luther Bible, for the translation of the NT into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era NT translations throughout Western and Central Europe… The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was translated from Vulgate. Hardly the stunning pedigree he seems to claim for it.

Actually the Textus Receptus, which has nothing at all to do with the Deuterocanonical books, was a pretty monumental achievement for its time in that it introduced the idea that the New Testament should be an eclectic (edited, critical) text rather than a diplomatic (single manuscript) text. So it is not “simply a collection of Greek texts” (not a collection of texts at all) but rather a critical edition of the New Testament–the scholarly model that is still in use to this day.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

being an Avid reader of new King James (at one time) and a Catholic I can tell you that it was Martin Luther that took the seven blessed Books away.

This is false information. You can take a look at Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible and see for yourself that they are there. Every Bible (Old and New Testament) that Luther had a hand in publishing included the Deuterocanonical texts.

Had he got his own way the Protestants would not have Revelation and Hebrews Either…!

This is false information.

 

[onemangang]

Actually, Codex Vaticanus, the oldest virtually complete Greek Bible, lacks all the books of Maccabees and Codex Sinaiticus lacks 2nd Maccabees, as your earlier post points out.

Ok, Lets see what the Codex Vaticanus originally contained

A virtually complete copy of the Septuagint (“LXX”), lacking only 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. The original 20 leaves with the Genesis 1:1–46:28a (31 leaves) and Psalm 105:27–137:6b have been lost and were transcribed by a later hand in the 15th century.[8] 2 Kings 2:5–7, 10-13 are also lost because of a tear to one of the pages.[9] The order of the Old Testament books in the Codex is as follows: Genesis to 2 Chronicles as normal;** 1 Esdras; 2 Esdras** (Ezra-Nehemiah); the Psalms; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs; Job;** Wisdom; Ecclesiasticus;** Esther; Judith; Tobit; the minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi; Isaiah; Jeremiah;** Baruch;** Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah; Ezekiel and Daniel. the Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Hebrews 9:14, καθαριει);** it is lacking 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation**

How about** Codex Sinaiticus** Originally, the Codex contained the whole of both Testaments. Approximately half of the Greek Old Testament (or Septuagint) survived, along with a complete New Testament, plus the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas.

Contents
The text of the Old Testament contains the following passages:
Genesis 23:19 – Genesis 24:46 – fragments
Numbers 5:26–Numbers 7:20 – fragments
1 Chronicles 9:27–1 Chronicles 19:17
Ezra-Nehemiah (from Esdr. 9:9).
Book of Psalms–Wisdom of Sirach
Book of Esther
Book of Tobit
Book of Judith
Book of Joel–Book of Malachi
Book of Isaiah
Book of Jeremiah
Book of Lamentations
1 Maccabees–4 Maccabees

And What about the The Codex Claromontanus
The Codex Claromontanus contains further precious documents:
A stichometric catalogue of the Old Testament and New Testament canon, of uncertain date, has been inserted in the codex. The list omits Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews. **It includes **several works no longer considered canonical: Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul, and Revelation of Peter.[4]

Actually the Textus Receptus, which has nothing at all to do with the Deuterocanonical books, was a pretty monumental achievement for its time in that it introduced the idea that the New Testament should be an eclectic (edited, critical) text rather than a diplomatic (single manuscript) text. So it is not “simply a collection of Greek texts” (not a collection of texts at all) but rather a critical edition of the New Testament–the scholarly model that is still in use to this day.

To add to your comment
Textus Receptus
The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the **Dutch Catholic scholar **and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was translated from Vulgate. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition

 

[fisherman_carl]

Greetings folks. I have been in a discussion/debate with a close friend who is somewhat assertive in his Bible interpretation.
Tthe subject of our Bible having seven more books than the St. James version has been something we are having a tough time working through.

I have investigated some of the research on the Deuterocanonical but a couple of points appear vague or unclear. So I was hoping someone here in the Forums might be able to shine a light for me.

#1 Is there any tangible way of proving that the early Christian Church (from the time of Christ to the Council of Javneh around 90 A.D) used the seven Deuterocanical Books.

#2 When did the Old Testament first appear without these books? Who or what made the decision to exclude the Deuterocanical Books. Did these individuals accept or reject the Divinity of Jesus Christ?

Many Thanks in advance.
Rob

#1 Not only can this be proved by looking at the earliest bibles in existence. But, here is a the copy of the earliest known bible. It has not only the Deuterocanonicals in it but it even has the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas in it, which did not make it into the canon, but was considered scripture by some Christians.
Click here to look at the table of contents - codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

#2 The OT did not appear without those books because they were always a part of the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that Christians used. Most of the references of the OT in the NT are from the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonicals. Keep in mind the term Deuterocanonicals and Protocanonicals is a term used to make it easier to reference these books. However, these terms did not exist until the 16th century. And those 7 books were always a part of the Christian canon. In fact, you can not find a bible before the 16th century that does not have those books in it.

Perhaps you should ask your friend how come the shepherd of Hermas is not in his NT bible?

Considering that these books are included in the earliest known bibles, can he prove that they were never used? The burden of proof is on him.

God Bless

 

[fisherman_carl]

This is false information. You can take a look at Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible and see for yourself that they are there. Every Bible (Old and New Testament) that Luther had a hand in publishing included the Deuterocanonical texts.

This is false information.

"Martin Luther was troubled by four books: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. Martin Luther proposed removing the Antilegomena, the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon,[90][91] echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide, but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[92][93]

Luther did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament of his translation of the Bible, placing them in the “Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read”.[94] He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of Esther from the Old Testament to the Apocrypha, since without the deuterocanonical sections, it never mentions God. As a result Catholics and Protestants continue to use different canons, which differ in respect to the Old Testament and the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Martin_Luther

“Luther chose to place the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. These books and addenda to canonical books are found in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Luther left the translating of them largely to Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas.[13] They were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament, and they were given the well-known title: “Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read” in the 1534 Bible.[14] See also Biblical canon, Development of the Christian Biblical canon, and Biblical Apocrypha.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#View_of_canonicity

I have heard that Luther removed some of the NT books from his bible for about a year and then put them back in. I think it was a Catholic apologist, maybe, Fr. Mitch Pacwa? Can anyone verify this? Maybe I just misheard him.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

"Martin Luther was troubled by four books: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. Martin Luther proposed removing the Antilegomena, the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon,[90][91] echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide, but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[92][93]

Luther did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament of his translation of the Bible, placing them in the “Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read”.[94] He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of Esther from the Old Testament to the Apocrypha, since without the deuterocanonical sections, it never mentions God. As a result Catholics and Protestants continue to use different canons, which differ in respect to the Old Testament and the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Martin_Luther

“Luther chose to place the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. These books and addenda to canonical books are found in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Luther left the translating of them largely to Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas.[13] They were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament, and they were given the well-known title: “Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read” in the 1534 Bible.[14] See also Biblical canon, Development of the Christian Biblical canon, and Biblical Apocrypha.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#View_of_canonicity

I have heard that Luther removed some of the NT books from his bible for about a year and then put them back in. I think it was a Catholic apologist, maybe, Fr. Mitch Pacwa? Can anyone verify this? Maybe I just misheard him.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

"Martin Luther was troubled by four books: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. Martin Luther proposed removing the Antilegomena, the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon,[90][91] echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide,

Partially true. Luther believed that the books mentioned were less important “bearers” of Christ. He found Revelation impossible to understand, but didn’t object to it per se on doctrinal grounds. In Luther’s first complete Bible (1534), the Book of Revelation contains commissioned woodcuts as polemical illustrations. It’s Luther’s Bible–he didn’t “propose” things to higher authorities.

but this was not generally accepted among his followers.

Fiction. The last thing Luther did was take orders from his “followers”.

However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[92][93]

True as far as I know.

Luther did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament of his translation of the Bible, placing them in the “Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read”.[94]

Mostly false. The deuterocanonical books are still part of the Old Testament, as even a casual glance at the Table of Contents will demonstrate. They are not in a separate section labelled “Apocrypha.” Certainly Luther granted these books secondary status.

He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of Esther from the Old Testament to the Apocrypha, since without the deuterocanonical sections, it never mentions God.

False. Again, it was Luther’s Bible. While he did have a great deal of assistance in translating the Old Testament was no one to “argue with” successfully or otherwise.

As a result Catholics and Protestants continue to use different canons, which differ in respect to the Old Testament and the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Martin_Luther

Pretty misleading. I don’t think any Protestants today buy into the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament.

"Luther chose to place the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments.

False. Luther included the Deuterocanonicals in the Old Testament, but shifted them to the end.

These books and addenda to canonical books are found in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Luther left the translating of them largely to Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas.[13]

Mostly true. Luther translated the Book of Wisdom and left the rest for others. Since the book of Wisdom is pretty lengthy I’m not sure about “largely.”

They were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament]

Pants-on-fire false. First of all, Luther didn’t publish a complete Bible or “Old Testament” in 1532, and he, Philip Melanchthon and others didn’t even begin the project of translating the deuterocanonicals until 1532.

and they were given the well-known title: “Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read” in the 1534 Bible.[14] See also Biblical canon, Development of the Christian Biblical canon, and Biblical Apocrypha."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#View_of_canonicity

False. Simply look at the table of contents for Luther’s Old Testament and you can see for yourself that this is not the case.

I have heard that Luther removed some of the NT books from his bible for about a year and then put them back in. I think it was a Catholic apologist, maybe, Fr. Mitch Pacwa? Can anyone verify this? Maybe I just misheard him.

How exactly does one remove books for a year and then put them back in? Luther published his complete Bible in 1534. There were two subsequent revisions–one in 1541 and another in 1545.

 

[Ignatius]

#1 Is there any tangible way of proving that the early Christian Church used the seven Deuterocanical Books.

Sure, 85% of the OT quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagent, which contains the Deuterocanon.

#2 When did the Old Testament first appear without these books? Who or what made the decision to exclude the Deuterocanical Books. Did these individuals accept or reject the Divinity of Jesus Christ?

The Original King James bible had them and continued to have them for some centuries. At some poiint, printers begam to drop some and then all of them. One can only speculate on the reason that different printers began to drop them.

 

[Abu]

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html
5 Myths about 7 Books, Mark Shea
“When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture—the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek—which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture.

“The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books.

“The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.”

Saint Jerome translated the ancient Greek and Hebrew Old Testament (46 books) and the Greek New Testament (27 books) into Latin and combined them into the first one volume set of Sacred Scriptures called “the Bible”. [Fr. John Trigilio on Aug/20/2010 (EWTN)].

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on Sept 17, 2010 (WENT):
“Only Protestant Bibles from 16th c. to today are missing the 7 books, Catholics call the Deuterocanonical and Protestants call Apocrypha. Baruch, Maccabees 1 & 2, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) and Wisdom. These books were written during the Babylonian captivity and Diaspora and thus were written in Greek but by Jews outside Palestine and divinely inspired nevertheless. Jewish leaders removed them from their Bible in 100 AD merely because they were not originally written in Hebrew. But 2/3 of the world’s Jews at that time (3rd c. BC, from 250-100 BC) lived outside the Holy Land and were more literate in Greek than Hebrew. Christians from the time of the Apostles and during Jesus’ time knew and accepted these 7 books, hence their presence in St. Jerome’s Bible.”

Fr John A Hardon in *The Catholic Catechism *points out that the rabbinical school at Jamnia circa A.D. 100 redefined the canon of the Old testament for the Jews, leaving out the seven books from their Palestinian canon because not conforming to the Pentateuch, or written after the time of Esdra (circa 400 B.C.)or not in Hebrew in Palestine, and “made a fence around it.”

 

[TertiumQuid]

To Dave Noonan: well done. The topic of Luther’s Bible has a lot of myth surrounding it.

I have one slight addition to what you’ve stated.

Originally Posted by fisherman carl: "He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of Esther from the Old Testament to the Apocrypha, since without the deuterocanonical sections, it never mentions God."

Quote:False. Again, it was Luther’s Bible. While he did have a great deal of assistance in translating the Old Testament was no one to “argue with” successfully or otherwise.

There isn’t a lot from Luther on the canonicty of Esther.The idea that Luther rejected the canonicty of Esther isn’t clear cut. I’ve only come across one explicit quote from Luther’s own writing in which a rejection of the canonicity of Esther can be inferred, and even that quote has interpretive problems.

Roger Beckwith (author of The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church) has said, “It is sometimes said that Luther, following certain of the Fathers, denied the Canonicity of Esther, but Hans Bardtke has questioned this, as not taking into account of all the evidence (Luther und das Buch Esther, Tubingen Mohr, 1964).”

One needs only to pull out Luther’s Bible and note where Esther is placed. Luther doesn’t place it in the section of apocrypha. He includes it with the canonical Old Testament books. In fact, in his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular non-canonical parts of Esther, and place them with the other apocryphal writings.

Regards,

James Swan