Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[Ginger2]

I discussed this in another thread, and suddenly the thread was deleted without any given reason. So I’ll try again…

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.

There’s a nuance to the truth that’s missing. The deuterocanonical books weren’t “added” after Luther. They were already in the Bible, an accepted part of the canon for centuries, until he removed them. He removed them because they supported several doctrines he personally disagreed with.

The canon was not clearly and succinctly expressed until Trent, though.

 

[guanophore]

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

No, Ginger2, this is a misrepresentation of the facts. The Reformers REMOVED seven books from the Bible. They are not extra. They were in there before Christ was born.

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.

It just goes to show how erroneous some of your beliefs are, Ginger2. The Septuagint was adopted formally by the Church in 382, mostly because it was the collection used by Jesus and His disciples. What happened as a countermeasure to Luther was a formal pronouncement that they belong in the canon of the Church.

Luther wanted to remove these books because they sounded too “Catholic”, just like he wanted to remove the letter of James, which he called “an epistle of straw”.

 

[guanophore]

There’s a nuance to the truth that’s missing. The deuterocanonical books weren’t “added” after Luther. They were already in the Bible, an accepted part of the canon for centuries, until he removed them. He removed them because they supported several doctrines he personally disagreed with.

The canon was not clearly and succinctly expressed until Trent, though.

They were accepted formally in several councils.

The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today,** together with the Septuagint books**, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382 issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above. Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.

The notion that the canon was not complete in the fourth century is erroneous.

 

[NotWorthy]

I discussed this in another thread, and suddenly the thread was deleted without any given reason. So I’ll try again…

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.

Can you show me the outcome of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage? These are where the Christian Church first declared the Canon of the OT (the Roman Synod could be included in this list).

What are the differences between the Canons of these two councils and Trent?

 

[NotWorthy]

The Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonicals, seemed to be the most used canon in Jesus’ time. As evidence of that, it was quoted over twice as often as the original Hebrew Scriptures. It would seem the ancient Jews considered them as part of the canon as well.

 

[CWBetts]

I discussed this in another thread, and suddenly the thread was deleted without any given reason. So I’ll try again…

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.

Actually they were always there. Luther pulled them out

 

[wardrandolph]

Hello Ginger2. With a little research,(google KJV)you may be surprised to find the KJV of the bible had these books up into the 1800’s.Please research(read)these Books.Jesus quotes quite a few verses.Look at Sirach 28:2 Forgive your neighbor’s injustice;then when you pray,your own sins will be forgiven.Compare this with Mt.6:14.The book of Wisdom contains a Prophecy concerning the Messiah(Wisdom 11:12-22).There are many other examples.These Books are easy to find online: www.usccb.org. www.ewtn.com. even on Protestant web pages.May the Holy Spirit lead and guide you.Rocky.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.

Jumping in this thread, eager to hear Ginger explain the existence of these books in the Canon for centuries prior to Luther…

 

[ferdie]

I discussed this in another thread, and suddenly the thread was deleted without any given reason. So I’ll try again…

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin

 

[Ginger2]

The Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonicals, seemed to be the most used canon in Jesus’ time. As evidence of that, it was quoted over twice as often as the original Hebrew Scriptures. It would seem the ancient Jews considered them as part of the canon as well.

This is false. There is no evidence Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted the Septuagint. They Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as non-inspired and secular writings

 

[JRKH]

This is false. There is no evidence Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted the Septuagint. They Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as non-inspired and secular writings

While others might debate you on these points, I will not.
However I would point to the earlier post that asked you to look at the outcome of the early councils of Hippo and Carthage.
The Universal Christian Church at that time determined the canon of the Bible and they included the longer OT of the septuigent.

I assume that you accept the Bible as the God’s inspired Word and if that is the case God would have gotten the canon right in the first place. Therefore, the canon as given in catholic Bibles would be the complete and correct canon while the truncated Protestant form would be an incomplete canon.

If you resist this idea that the early councils that included the deutero’s got it right, then that would mean that these councils were themselves flawed and thus the ENTIRE canon of Scripture becomes suspect.

Peace
James

 

[Ginger2]

Therefore, the canon as given in catholic Bibles would be the complete and correct canon while the truncated Protestant form would be an incomplete canon.

Not quite…

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”

The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.

When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.

“[COLOR=“DarkGreen”]As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.”* Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

 

[JRKH]

Not quite…

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”

The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.

When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.

"[COLOR=“DarkGreen”]As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine

."* Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

It is interesting that you have managed to avoid the main question that people have asked. What canon was formally adopted by the Church at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage? Either these Councils got it right or they didn’t. If they missed on the Deutero’s what else might they have missed on?

It is easy to point to Jerome, or any individual, and say there was dispute, but you will note that he DID include the Deutero’s in his translation. So while he may have personally disagreed with their inclusion, he submitted his will and judgement to the Spirit Protected Jusdement of the Church.

The Fact remains (and it is a fact) that the Deutero’s were included in the canon of the Christian Bibles from 400 AD until the protestant reformation. Thus, in answer to the query in your OP, the Books were NOT added but were, rather, subtracted.

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

It is interesting that you have managed to avoid the main question that people have asked. What canon was formally adopted by the Church at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage? Either these Councils got it right or they didn’t. If they missed on the Deutero’s what else might they have missed on?

Indeed. Ginger…still waiting for your response to these councils and reconciling them with Jerome. Also, do you base all your doctrine on Jerome?

It is easy to point to Jerome, or any individual, and say there was dispute, but you will note that he DID include the Deutero’s in his translation. So while he may have personally disagreed with their inclusion, he submitted his will and judgement to the Spirit Protected Jusdement of the Church.

Correct again. It is also noteworthy that Jerome was not always consistent in his regard for deuterocanonical books either:*“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a ‘helmeted’ introduction to all the books which we now turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom… the book of …Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be in Hebrew, the second in Greek, as can be proved from the very style.” Jerome, Preface to Samuel and Kings [Prologus Galeatus] (A.D. 391).

“[D]oes not the scripture say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power’Sirach 13:2]?” Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404).

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: ‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit’[Ps 51:17], and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death’[Ez 18:23], and those of Baruch, 'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem’Baruch 5:5], and many other proclamations made by the trumpets of the prophets.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399).*

 

[BrianH]

I believe you will see more mainline Protestants, myself being an example, drop most of our resistence to the 7 books as more information comes out via believe it or not on the internet. Prior to such ease of information, the only thing we really had on them was the commentary in our Bible’s about why they were not in there. Now I am sure some of the scholars knew but really the information was not as readily available.
While I cannot give them the exact same status as the 66, I think it IS becoming apparent (my pastors being examples) that we do not have a good reason to not have them in our Bible’s in some capacity.

 

[Ginger2]

It is interesting that you have managed to avoid the main question that people have asked.

The Fact remains (and it is a fact) that the Deutero’s were included in the canon of the Christian Bibles from 400 AD until the protestant reformation. Thus, in answer to the query in your OP, the Books were NOT added but were, rather, subtracted.

Peace
James

First, if the canon was already set from 400 AD, why do Roman Catholics and Orthodox have different canons???

Second, If the canon was set from 400 AD, why do lists after that vary excluding some or all the deutoros?

Third, Hopefully we all agree what constitutes Holy Scripture is books/epistles that were written under the inspiration of God. The deutoeros themselves state they are not written by Prophets, but rather written when prophets ceased to be for a time.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is false. There is no evidence Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted the Septuagint. They Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as non-inspired and secular writings

Simply look at Matthew where he quotes Isaiah 7:14.

Our Hebrews Scriptures say “a maiden shall conceive”. The Greek Scriptures, as does Matthew say, “a virgin shall conceive”. There are numerous examples where its easy to see that the Greek translation is what the authors quoted.

You do realize that the Hebrew language used less in writing than the Greek during this time, don’t you?

 

[NotWorthy]

Not quite…

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: The “Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.”
AND
“[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,”

The Catholic Church admits the deuteros were not always universally accepted,- at first they were disputed.

When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine

."* Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.And Jerome had what authority??? No, instead, Jerome acquiesced to the authority of the Church and put them in the Old Testament as was determined by the Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.

“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.”* Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon.

What was one of the main reasons our good St. Jerome didn’t include them? Why, Martin Luther agrees with Jerome because they weren’t ever written in Hebrew, only in Greek.

But that was before we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls (around 1950?) which do indeed have scraps of 6 of the 7 deuterocanonicals written in Hebrew.