I’m assuming your above response has to do w/ the deuterocanonical books.
Your church did not make it binding upon the conscious of faithful Catholics to accept the deutero’s until Trent. Up until that time members of your church were rather free in accepting them or rejecting them.
Funny how history works.
Alright, let’s talk about the Deuterocanonicals. As you know, there were all kinds of different kinds of scripture canons floating around during the time of Our Lord, but the first time that the seven deuteros were specifically excluded as a group was during the Council of Javneh in in 90 AD, when rabbis compiled the definitive Hebrew canon of scripture. You will of course agree that this is not binding for Christians, but why hold such a council? To stop Christianity from moving into Judaism’s “territory”, that’s why! Javneh also made definitive pronouncements on the Gospels. The point of this Council was to stop Christianity from spreading in Israel, and the best way to do so was to remove books that deeply reflected the practices of Christians. Many Jews converted to Christianity after reading the Deuteros, and Jewish leaders wanted to stop this.
As to the Septuagint–how do you explain the fact that
two thirds of OT quotes came from the Septuagint? Even if the Apostles didn’t use it exclusively, the fact that they used it most of the time seems to acknowledge the fact that they didn’t see any glaring, major errors in it, like the inclusions of non-inspired books. And think of it this way–of all the OT manuscripts available at the time, dozens of writers living in different places at different times all seem to have this one in common at least some of the time, something that no other manuscript can make a claim to. They also never gave instructions that seven OT books ought to be excluded.
True, we don’t know when and by whom the Septuagint was written, but we don’t know that about the Book of Hebrews in the NT either. (for a further defence of the septuagint, read here
ecclesia.org/truth/defense.html)).
As to Patristic acknowledgement, Protestant scholar JND Kelley seems to acknowledge that regardless of what was added to bibles before the 3rd century, the deuteros, like the books that we agree are inspired, were virtually never left out.
Why was the canon only finalized at the Council of Rome in 382? It is a longstanding Catholic tradition (and, it seems, a directive of the Holy Ghost) that things are not infallibly defined until they either are abused, or popular demand means its written infallibility would be beneficial. If everyone had the same canon of scripture, the Church wouldn’t have defined things, since they don’t do these things when they are unnecessary. Also, none of the Church fathers exclude these books. Athanasius accpeted them, and several absolutely uncanonical books, and Origen said they shouldn’t be used in debate, but The Church fathers (with the exception of Jerome, who conformed to the popular view after a better look at these seven books) no Patristic writer seems to exclude the deuteros.
Now let’s look at what happened during the Reformation. Martin Luther, being quite irate with abuses being perpetrated by many Catholics, re-defined the canon to better suit his own beliefs. He took out the seven OT books, as well as Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He did so with no precedent other than a few early writings by Jerome that were later recanted, and a the Jewish council of Javneh. Also, the removal of these 4 NT books clearly demonstrate his inability to produce an unbiased, correct canon. Other Protestant reformers decided to put the four NT books back in, but followed Luther’s OT canon, again without precedent.
Eventually, many Protestant scholars began trying to rewrite history, making the outrageous claim that they were added at Trent. Anyone who has read the decrees of Trent knows that isn’t true.
In short, there was never a real line drawn between the seven deuterocanonicals and other books in Christianity before Martin Luther removed them for purely doctrinal reasons, and those who argue that they are not inspired need to more clearly draw some kind of distinction between these and the other books before the arguments become truly feasible.
Jeremiah:
