Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[Pwrlftr]

From newadvent.org
newadvent on the deutero's:

During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity.

I’ve often asked this and don’t remember whether or not I ever got an answer. There is no doubt that the councils of Hippo and Carthage ruled that the detuero’s were canonical. As far as I know these two councils weren’t ecumenical and therefore weren’t infallible but nonetheless, they did say the deutero’s were part of the canon.

Now, why would the church send out the Vulgate with Jerome’s negative comments as to the canonocity of the deutero’s after two councils ruled that the deutero’s were part of the canon?

 

[bookgirl32]

Thanks for your post. I didn’t understand what you were trying to say.

I honestly don’t know when the Jewish canon would be considered to be closed. Many of the arguments regarding the Jewish canon could be used against modern day Christianity by saying the Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox all have different canons therefore the Christian canon isn’t closed.

Like many of the threads here at CAF, this one may be hopelessly lost in polemics.

Especially when people are not here to have a real debate . . .
but I have to say I get more emotionally involved then I should and answer without thinking.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Especially when people are not here to have a real debate . . .
but I have to say I get more emotionally involved then I should and answer without thinking.

I think we would all be better off if we discussed things instead of focussing in on winning the debate.

I’ve done my share too

 

[patrick457]

Flavius Josephus wrote that the Jewish canon was closed long before Jesus. See # 8

earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html

We’re going in circles here.

As I have said before (posts no. 99, 101-102 in this thread), Josephus is not so much an accurate testimony of the antiquity of the 22-book limit for the Jewish canon; rather, he is a probable witness to the Pharisaic canon crystallizing in the late 1st century. Plus, Josephus’ statements needs to read within the context of Second Temple Judaism: his comments should be more appropriately read in relation to his overall aim: convincing gentiles that the Jewish canon (or at least, Josephus’ view of what the canon should be) is more superior and legitimate.

Whereas the period before 70 AD was characterized by an intense diversity in types of Judaism (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Therapeutae, to name a few), the period after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem saw the gradual emergence of a dominant and coherent form of Judaism.
It was only at this period, when Judaism became more and more consolidated, that the canon of Scripture became a major issue. Aside from the Torah and a number of books, certain writings still had ambiguous statuses; some circles of Judaism were in fact still opposed to the idea of a push to establish the exclusive authority of a 24-book canon and attempted to claim higher authority for certain books outside that canon (cf. 2 Esdras [4 Esdras] 14:38-48).

In fact, it was only during the late Tannaitic (early 3rd century AD) and early Amoraic (3rd-4th century) that the final steps to a ‘canonization’ of sorts were done. From this period onward do we only begin to see the gradual establishment of the tripartite, 24-book Tanakh that we know of today.

A few things to ponder:

1.) If the Jewish canon was closed long before Jesus, then why is it that the various forms of Second Temple Judaism, while having the Torah as a common element, had varying opinions on whether the Torah alone is Scripture or whether other books could also be counted as part of the canon?
2.) Josephus symphatized with the Pharisees, who accepted other books as part of their canon (in contrast to the Sadducees, who ascribed holiness to the Torah alone); should we really take him as an accurate spokesman for 1st-century Judaism as a whole, considering the various flavors of Judaism that existed before 70 AD (and after)?

Since your question in the OP (and a few tangents) was already answered in detail by many people, I think it is high time that this thread is closed. It had served its duty, IMHO.

 

[patrick457]

(Part 3)

Such concern for increasing definition of a canon over and above other texts fits well with the focus of Judaism during this time of consolidation during the wake of the destruction of the Temple. Whereas the preceding period was characterized by an intense diversity in types of Judaism (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Therapeutae, to name a few), the period post-70 AD sees the gradual emergence of a dominant and coherent form of Judaism. This new form of Judaism (“Rabbinic Judaism”) is reflected in the Mishnah and other documents and the increasing dominance of the rabbinic schools. While other forms of Judaism continued to coexist with the rabbinic one, ultimately no form of Judaism seems to have survived and flourished which did not accomodate itself in some way to the new rabbinic structures and texts which by this point is becoming increasingly dominant (with Karaite Judaism being a possible exception).

Only well into the midst of this consolidation process do we see the definitive numbering and particular organization of the books presently found in the Tanakh. Thus, most Tannaitic passages still speak of a bipartite canon consisting of the ‘Law’ (Torah) and the ‘Prophets’ and record continuing disputes about the status of certain books (the issue now is whether to exclude said books from the canon, as some kind of authority of these books are already presupposed in many of these discussions).

It is only during the late Tannaitic (early 3rd century AD) and early Amoraic (3rd-4th centuries AD), when the Jewish community is more fully consolidated, that the final steps to ‘canonization’ were done. From this period onward do we only begin to see the first full-fledged establishment of the tripartite, 24-book Tanakh that we know of today.

So, in sum: the Jews themselves were only starting to have an idea of a closed Biblical canon when Christianity emerged. The Tanakh itself had only reached its present 24-book, three-part form after decades of consolidation, discussion, decisions, and even opposition, long after Christianity and rabbinic Judaism became separate from one another. It, like the decision of the Christian Biblical canon, was a gradual process, not something that merely popped out of thin air one day.

 

[patrick457]

I think this is consistent with modern scholarship. The council of Jamnia shouldn’t be brought into the discussion of whether the deutero’s are or aren’t canonical but it’s like clockwork, discuss the deutero’s and folks start claming they were part of the Jewish canon until the council of Jamnia removed them.

That reminds me of something I’ve read.

In the Mishnah, there was a passage that describes some of the debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim (the “Writings”), and in particular whether or not they “render the hands impure” (i.e. included in the canon). Yadayim 3:5 for instance calls attention to the debate over Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes:

All the holy writings render the hands impure. The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands impure. Rabbi Judah says: “The Song of Songs render the hands impure, but there is a dispute about Ecclesiastes.” Rabbi Jose says, “Ecclesiastes does not make the hands impure, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.” Rabbi Simeon says, “Ecclesiastes is one of the leniencies of Beit Shammai and one of the stringencies of Beit Hillel.”

Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai said, “I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Eleazar ben-Azariah head of the Academy that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes make the hands impure.” Rabbi Akiva said, “God forbid! No one in Israel ever disagreed about the Song of Songs [by saying] that it does not make the hands impure. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. So if they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Ecclesiastes.”

Yohanan ben Joshua the son of Rabbi Akiva’s father-in-law said, “In accordance with the words of Ben Azzai so they disputed, and so they reached a decision [that both Song of Songs and Qoheleth are included in the canon].”

The Talmud, in Megillah 7a recounts the following dispute concerning the book of Esther:

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Samuel: “The Book of Esther does not defile the hands. Is this to be understood to mean that Samuel rules that Esther was not written with divine inspiration? But does not Samuel himself say that Esther was written with divine inspiration; Rather [Samuel rules] that Esther was said to be read and not to be written. Let us ask: Rabbi Meir states, ‘Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands and there is a dispute as to whether Song of Songs defiles the hands.’” Rabbi Yossi states Song of Songs defiles the hands and Ecclesiastes is in dispute. Rabbi Shimon states: “Ecclesiastes is one of the cases where Beit Shammai is more liberal than Beit Hillel, but Ruth, Song of Songs and Esther certainly defile the hands. This is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua who states: ‘As learned Rabbi Shimon ben Mennasiah states: ‘Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands since it is the wisdom of Solomon.’’”

Based on these, and a few similar references, Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a ‘Council of Jamnia’ which had decided Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century (c. 70-90). This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. However, from the 1960s onwards, based on the work of J.P. Lewis, S.Z. Leiman, and others, this view increasingly came into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of Graetz’s sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions of the rabbis were about canonicity at all.

So, for short, the idea of a “Council of Jamnia” is a mere hypothesis based on a presumption based on a mere few passages and outdated scholarship.

 

[Church_Militant]

From newadvent.org

I’ve often asked this and don’t remember whether or not I ever got an answer. There is no doubt that the councils of Hippo and Carthage ruled that the detuero’s were canonical. As far as I know these two councils weren’t ecumenical and therefore weren’t infallible but nonetheless, they did say the deutero’s were part of the canon.

Now, why would the church send out the Vulgate with Jerome’s negative comments as to the canonocity of the deutero’s after two councils ruled that the deutero’s were part of the canon?

The fact is that at that point Jerome (and then later Martin Luther) were distressed that there were no copies of the DCs in Hebrew, but this became a moot point when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found because among them are parts of the DCs in Hebrew and Aramaic, so their difficulties were both understandable and ultimately unfounded.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The fact is that at that point Jerome (and then later Martin Luther) were distressed that there were no copies of the DCs in Hebrew, but this became a moot point when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found because among them are parts of the DCs in Hebrew and Aramaic, so their difficulties were both understandable and ultimately unfounded.

I think you are correct although there may have been other issues as well. I haven’t really studied why ML rejected the deutero’s although since he chose the same canon as Jerome I am sure you are right that the Hebrew issue played a part in his decision.

Nonetheless, I haven’t ever heard anyone address why the Church would send out the vulgate which included Jerome’s neagtive commentary as to the canonocity of the deutero’s. I am not much of a student of history but as far as I know, the Church did this after the councils of Hippo and Carthage which, as we know, said that the deutero’s were indeed part of the inspired list of scripture.

Have you any thoughts on this?

 

[Pwrlftr]

So, for short, the idea of a “Council of Jamnia” is a mere hypothesis based on a presumption based on a mere few passages and outdated scholarship.

Thanks for the information.

I think that the current scholarship rejects the idea that Jamnia had anything to do with the rejection of the deutero’s. That said, I’m sure it’s possible to find various folks who fully support the idea that the “council” threw out the deutero’s.

 

[AliciaCL]

The larger picture that seems to be so often missed by non-Catholics is that the Catholic Church compiled the bible, period.

When the Reformation came along, none of the Protestant Churches, ever tried to repeat the councils which met to examine, consider and argue which books should be included in the Cannon and come up with their own version. There is no explantion whey they didn’t, other than, they accepted the Catholic Church’s judgment, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, that the selected books were divinely inspired. They chose to defer to the Catholic Church’s judgment. In so doing, they partially recognized the Church’s Christ-given authority. Departing from full church recognition, is where they “went off the rails” – which is what many non-Catholic church’s say about the Catholic church. Its’ actually the other way around.

Yet for hundreds of years many non-Catholic churches insist that only those books, (selected by the Catholic Church) govern the principles of Christianity; the church’s interpretation is to cast out the window because, because, because some 16th Century guys decided they had a better spin. That is harsh, yes but actually, in essence, true.

The non-Catholics of the world follow a truncated faith. That is shocking and offensive for them to hear it. We are not condescending to them when we say that. They have not done anything wrong themselves but if they are at this juncture wondering about the cannon, it should lead them to the original permanent church.

Anyone who is looking at this issue and wondering how come, should also wonder: would the supreme God of the universe send his human/God son to reveal the kingdom and save humanity and be OK with leaving behind 30,000 churches that sort of follow most of the teachings? The Catholic church is the only one which was established by Christ and He entrusted it to remain the shepherd for manind throughout time.

Name me any other human institution on the planet that has survived the human ravages of war, revolution, etc. for 2,000 years — only the church and the chosen people themselves. Think that’s an accident of human history?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Name me any other human institution on the planet that has survived the human ravages of war, revolution, etc. for 2,000 years — only the church and the chosen people themselves. Think that’s an accident of human history?

Budhism?

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for the information.

I think that the current scholarship rejects the idea that Jamnia had anything to do with the rejection of the deutero’s. That said, I’m sure it’s possible to find various folks who fully support the idea that the “council” threw out the deutero’s.

You’re welcome.
Yes, there are still some people who believe in the probably non-existent ‘council’. The belief had rooted itself deep (after about a century of being trumpeted and parroted by scholars and laymen alike) and would still take some time to eradicate.

 

[Ginger2]

I can’t find the post now, but someone suggested I read about why Luther excluded the seven books in question. So I did…

I have discovered that Luther inwriting one book at a time, Luther released them as each book was finished instead of waiting until all were completed.

Luther actually did translated and published the Deuteros/Apocrypha!

He separated them from canonical books and appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

Luther did what Jerome had done - he placed them separate from inspired books!

Concerning the NT James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation, Luther translated these, too. He did not, from what I can see, question their place in the Bible, but rather their authorship.

Luther stated the NT qualification was “that which is apostolic.” However, Luther did not treat the four NT books as he did the Apocrypha. There was no denial of their inspiration that I could find.

Luther finished the entire Bible by 1534. In 1545, a year before his death, he finished five original editions of the whole Bible.

It included the same books as Jerome’s Vulgate.



So, to a certain extent I was mistaken. The Catholic Church did not add the books as a counter to the Reformation. But they proclaimed them inspired for the first time.

 

[patrick457]

I can’t find the post now, but someone suggested I read about why Luther excluded the seven books in question. So I did…

I have discovered that Luther inwriting one book at a time, Luther released them as each book was finished instead of waiting until all were completed.

Luther actually did translated and published the Deuteros/Apocrypha!

He separated them from canonical books and appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

Luther did what Jerome had done - he placed them separate from inspired books!

Concerning the NT James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation, Luther translated these, too. He did not, from what I can see, question their place in the Bible, but rather their authorship.

Luther stated the NT qualification was “that which is apostolic.” However, Luther did not treat the four NT books as he did the Apocrypha. There was no denial of their inspiration that I could find.

Luther finished the entire Bible by 1534. In 1545, a year before his death, he finished five original editions of the whole Bible.

It included the same books as Jerome’s Vulgate.



So, to a certain extent I was mistaken. The Catholic Church did not add the books as a counter to the Reformation. But they proclaimed them inspired for the first time.

Let me first preface this post with a greeting of a Happy New Year to you and to everyone else in these forums.

The good thing is, you got your stuff right!
Luther did translate the Deuteros (though technically, the ones who actually did the job were mostly Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas) and moved them to a separate section, so we shouldn’t be too harsh on him.

Initially Luther did have a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. In his Preface to the New Testament he wrote:

In sum: the gospel and the first epistle of St. John, St. Paul’ s epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians; and St. Peter’s first epistle, are the books which show Christ to you. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or hear any other teaching. In comparison with these, the epistle of James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical. But more about this in other prefaces.

Luther developed this view on the Epistle of James in his Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, where he shows his belief that the epistle was not written by an apostle and that the contents are “contrary to Paul and the rest of Scripture” in ascribing justification by works.

He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” Fortunately though his views on some of these books changed as time went on.

 

[NotWorthy]

Nonetheless, I haven’t ever heard anyone address why the Church would send out the vulgate which included Jerome’s neagtive commentary as to the canonocity of the deutero’s.

Were St. Jerome’s commentary included IN the Scriptures? I mean, in various bibles we read today, the introduction is included before you get to the Scriptures themselves, as a way of providing context and background.

But was this always the case, or are we imposing our ideas on the past? I would have thought St. Jerome’s commentary would have been a separate book, and therefore, not directly under the influence of the Church.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I can’t find the post now, but someone suggested I read about why Luther excluded the seven books in question. So I did…

I have discovered that Luther inwriting one book at a time, Luther released them as each book was finished instead of waiting until all were completed.

Luther actually did translated and published the Deuteros/Apocrypha!

He separated them from canonical books and appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

Luther did what Jerome had done - he placed them separate from inspired books!

Concerning the NT James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation, Luther translated these, too. He did not, from what I can see, question their place in the Bible, but rather their authorship.

Luther stated the NT qualification was “that which is apostolic.” However, Luther did not treat the four NT books as he did the Apocrypha. There was no denial of their inspiration that I could find.

Luther finished the entire Bible by 1534. In 1545, a year before his death, he finished five original editions of the whole Bible.

It included the same books as Jerome’s Vulgate.



So, to a certain extent I was mistaken. The Catholic Church did not add the books as a counter to the Reformation. But they proclaimed them inspired for the first time.

www.beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com is a pretty good site for all things concerning Luther.

Thanks for the post, that was interesting.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Were St. Jerome’s commentary included IN the Scriptures? I mean, in various bibles we read today, the introduction is included before you get to the Scriptures themselves, as a way of providing context and background.

But was this always the case, or are we imposing our ideas on the past? I would have thought St. Jerome’s commentary would have been a separate book, and therefore, not directly under the influence of the Church.

It is my understanding that Jerom’s prologues were at the begining of each of the books…I guess kind of page i, ii, iii…before page 1.

From what I have read his introductions were included in the vulgate, in other words as part of the vulgate itself.

I just don’t quite understand what the church was thinking when it sent the vulgate out w/ the negative comments about the canonocity of the deutero’s.

As you know, I am converting but I had asked this question several times before in other threads and I don’t recall anyone replying.

I don’t think either Carthage or Hippo were infallible councils and many Catholic sources say that the canon of the OT wasn’t infallibly settled until Trent. Regardless, I am not sure why the vulgate went out w/ the negative commentary from Jerome.

You can go to newadvent.org and look under the section for the deutero’s for more information.

 

[AliciaCL]

Budhism isn’t an institution as the church is. It’s a philosophy/religion that has no human corporate organization.

 

[NotWorthy]

Budhism?

Is budhism an institution?

 

[NotWorthy]

Luther did what Jerome had done - he placed them separate from inspired books!

With the exact same authority that St. Jerome did… which is no authority at all. But St. Jerome acquiesced to the true Authority - the Church. Sadly, Martin Luther did not.

So, to a certain extent I was mistaken. The Catholic Church did not add the books as a counter to the Reformation. ** But they proclaimed them inspired for the first time**.

Where do you get this? St. Jerome spoke his opinion when he questioned their inspirtation, he did not speak Church Teaching.

Are you still trying to beat this dead horse, Ginger?