Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[Ginger2]

The Catholic Church has never claimed any edition of the Vulgate to be “critically” accurate text, that is, exact translation of the original autographs. The expression “ex-catehdral version of Scripture” is meaningless in Catholic theology.

THank you for clarifying that.

 

[NotWorthy]

My summation today is this:

*These books have always been read in the church (I have never disagreed on that point)
*These books were never universally considered inspired until Trent (I always believed that since my “extra books” discovery) Therefore, it is inaccurate to say the RC added them, but rather they declared them inspired for the first time in trhe 16th century.
*Martin Luther did not removed any books from the church Rather he affirmed the pope’s decision that the deuteros were not inspired but had a lesser value within the Christian community. Which is demonstrating by the pope’s approval of Jerome stating so in the Vulgate.

Where are you getting these ridiculous claims?!? What in the world did Hippo and Carthage decide if not the fact that the deutero’s are all an integral part of the inspired canon.

Catholics don’t list books in the canon in order to be read in the Mass, unless they are considered inspired works.

 

[Ginger2]

Where are you getting these ridiculous claims?!? What in the world did Hippo and Carthage decide if not the fact that the deutero’s are all an integral part of the inspired canon.

Catholics don’t list books in the canon in order to be read in the Mass, unless they are considered inspired works.

Then why did the pope allow a disclaimer to be written in the Vulgate?

The Catholic Church, since the 16th century, has considered these books inspired, but not before. Not until after ML.

To try and end on some sort of a good note.

I can acknowledge that the extended versions were probably considered inspired by the pope, as they were not separated.

However, whether inspired or not, Bel and the Dragon is not part of Daniel.

 

[NotWorthy]

Then why did the pope allow a disclaimer to be written in the Vulgate?

Are you talking about the disclaimer that Dave addressed in one of his posts overnight? The one where Jerome explained to Rufinius why he added the objections into the introduction.

The Catholic Church, since the 16th century, has considered these books inspired, but not before. Not until after ML.

To try and end on some sort of a good note.

I can acknowledge that the extended versions were probably considered inspired by the pope, as they were not separated.

However, whether inspired or not, Bel and the Dragon is not part of Daniel.

But, since the deutero’s were not separated, can you accept that they probably were considered inspired by the Pope.

Ginger, I’ve asked you several times (and yes, I know you’ve had a lot of posts to answer, so I’m not accusing you of dodging me), but I don’t understand what you think the councils of Hippo and Carthage (with the subsequent “seal of approval” by the Pope) decided for the Catholic Church, if not the list of inspired books? Can you elucidate?

 

[Ginger2]

Are you talking about the disclaimer that Dave addressed in one of his posts overnight? The one where Jerome explained to Rufinius why he added the objections into the introduction.

Please reference the post # as I believe you are misinterpreting what was said.

But, since the deutero’s were not separated, can you accept that they probably were considered inspired by the Pope.

Ginger, I’ve asked you several times (and yes, I know you’ve had a lot of posts to answer, so I’m not accusing you of dodging me), but I don’t understand what you think the councils of Hippo and Carthage (with the subsequent “seal of approval” by the Pope) decided for the Catholic Church, if not the list of inspired books? Can you elucidate?

I thought I’d answered that question and am trying to avoid answering the same questions repeatedly. But is it hard when so many people are participating in one conversation.

First, Catholics here have already acknowledged Hippo and Carthage were not infallible or ex-cathedral or dogmatic councils (not sure how that was worded)

Second, Catholics have acknowledged the Pope didn’t declare their canons dogma.

Third, the pope sanction Jerome’s disclaimer stating these books were good to be read in church for edification, etc., but **not for matters of doctrine **nor authority.

1. If Hippo and Carthage set the canon, why is the canon declared at Trent slightly different? Should it not have been exactly the way Hippo and Carthage listed it?

 

[NotWorthy]

Please reference the post # as I believe you are misinterpreting what was said.

Post #388.

But, since the deutero’s were not separated, can you accept that they probably were considered inspired by the Pope.

I can accept that they definitely WERE considered inspired by the Pope. “Probably” does not even come into the mix.

But which Pope are you talking about - 5th century or 16th century?

I thought I’d answered that question and am trying to avoid answering the same questions repeatedly. But is it hard when so many people are participating in one conversation.

First, Catholics here have already acknowledged Hippo and Carthage were not infallible or ex-cathedral or dogmatic councils (not sure how that was worded)

Second, Catholics have acknowledged the Pope didn’t declare their canons dogma.

But you misunderstand “Dogma” when you make these statements to prove your point. The Church doesn’t go around willy-nilly proclaiming things Dogma, and only then believing in them.

One can use this reasoning to claim that:
a) The Catholic Church didn’t believe in or teach Transubstantiation until the 12 century.
or
b) The Catholic Church didn’t truly believe in or teach the Immaculate Conception till 1950.

You see my point? Even though the Council of Hippo and Carthage were not considered dogmatic, this is ony because there was not enough resistance to force the Pope to make it Dogmatic. If there was a strong enough opposition to the inspiration of the Deutero’s, then the Pope would have “sealed the Deal” and made it Dogmatic.

This level of opposition didn’t occur until the Protestant Reformation.

Third, the pope sanction Jerome’s disclaimer stating these books were good to be read in church for edification, etc., but **not for matters of doctrine **nor authority.

The Pope does not allow any readings in the Mass except for inspired works. Period. That’s one of the biggest reasons the Church put forth a Canon.

1. If Hippo and Carthage set the canon, why is the canon declared at Trent slightly different? Should it not have been exactly the way Hippo and Carthage listed it?

Does it list different books? If its declared differently, in my opinion, its because some words were added or changed in order to put down opposition - opposition in a form that didn’t exist 1100 years earlier. I’m not saying there wasn’t dissent, but that the dissent may have put forth different arguments.

But you simply can’t say, “Different Wording, so they must not have been inspired in the 4th century”.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Does it list different books? If its declared differently, in my opinion, its because some words were added or changed in order to put down opposition - opposition in a form that didn’t exist 1100 years earlier. I’m not saying there wasn’t dissent, but that the dissent may have put forth different arguments.

But you simply can’t say, “Different Wording, so they must not have been inspired in the 4th century”.

NotWorthy,

There is a slight difference between the canon proclaimed at Trent and the one at Carthage and Hippo.

You can go to Gary Michuta’s website to get more information on this.

 

[Pwrlftr]

For those who are interested in whether or not the canons of Carthage and Hippo match identically to that proclaimed at Trent, the following link will take you to an article by Gary Michuta for a discussion on Esdras.

handsonapologetics.com/first_response_white_webster.htm

 

[Ginger2]

The Pope does not allow any readings in the Mass except for inspired works. Period. That’s one of the biggest reasons the Church put forth a Canon.

That totally contradicts history.

Does it list different books? If its declared differently, in my opinion, its because some words were added or changed in order to put down opposition

I am editing my response as Pwrlftr has given a link.

 

[Ginger2]

Post #388.

Jerome was talking about the extended version of Daniel, which I believe I already stated was not separated from the inspired Scriptures.

Since he didn’t separate it your point is mute.

 

[NotWorthy]

That totally contradicts history.

Really!!! Aside from this being only your opinion, the church did use different books, and renamed them to fit.

Explain, please?

 

[NotWorthy]

Jerome was talking about the extended version of Daniel, which I believe I already stated was not separated from the inspired Scriptures.

Since he didn’t separate it your point is mute.

OK. I didn’t realize there were different objections of St. Jerome’s that we were dealing with. This thread can go pretty fast at some times.

 

[Ginger2]

Explain, please?

Sorry NotWorthy, Pwrlftr had posted while I was writing that and I edited my post B4 seeing this.

I would refer you to his link.

 

[Ginger2]

OK. I didn’t realize there were different objections of St. Jerome’s that we were dealing with. This thread can go pretty fast at some times.

lol You’re telling me!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

For those who are interested in whether or not the canons of Carthage and Hippo match identically to that proclaimed at Trent, the following link will take you to an article by Gary Michuta for a discussion on Esdras.

handsonapologetics.com/first_response_white_webster.htm

So, if I read this correctly, The Book of Esdras, Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees were included in Carthage and Hippo. But they were “passed over in silence” at Trent? I wasn’t aware of this.

But (and pardon my ignorance), what does “passed over in silence” mean?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Question.

Does anyone have any evidence of a book being used in the liturgy that did not make the cut at either Carthage or Hippo?

I guess this is reall a question for Ginger.

 

[NotWorthy]

Question.

Does anyone have any evidence of a book being used in the liturgy that did not make the cut at either Carthage or Hippo?

I guess this is reall a question for Ginger.

We’re looking for evidence “after Hippo”. Prior to Hippo, of course there were numerous books read in the Liturgy that didn’t make the cut.

 

[Pwrlftr]

So, if I read this correctly, The Book of Esdras, Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees were included in Carthage and Hippo. But they were “passed over in silence” at Trent? I wasn’t aware of this.

But (and pardon my ignorance), what does “passed over in silence” mean?

I don’t know. This whole issue confuses me. Michuta claims that the fathers at Trent made no judgement on the book(s) in question (passed over in silence). I think Michuta believes that the canon is not necessarily closed.

To make things more confusing, apparently the council fathers at Trent took at least one vote on the canonocity of the books which were finally declared infallibly as being canonical.

There appears to be some confusion as to what the vote was actually for but there was a sizeable minority who voted to reject all or at least some of the deuterocanonicals.

Gary has some information on his site and James Swan does too.

www.handsonapologetics.com and www.beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com

At James’ website you will have to go to the righthand side of the page and look for canon issues. Art Sippo and Gary Michuta had both been in contact with James on various canon issues so the discussion are pretty good.

 

[Pwrlftr]

We’re looking for evidence “after Hippo”. Prior to Hippo, of course there were numerous books read in the Liturgy that didn’t make the cut.

Yeah…you are correct. I changed some of the text before I posted and left out the “after the councils” part.

But yes, does anyone have any evidence of a book being used in the liturgy AFTER THE COUNCILS OF CARTHAGE AND HIPPO that were not included in the list of canonical scriptures at these two councils?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Somebody posted way, way, way back that this thread was over.

IMHO, whether anyone changes their mind on the canonocity of the dueteros or not, there is still a lot to be learned so I am glad that this thread is not over.