Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[Ginger2]

The find also contained most books of the Old Testament, meaning that it contained both many Biblical books and extra-biblical books. So you cannot discount Sirach or Tobit or Baruch just because they were among the Dead Sea Scrolls! NotWorthy is right, it does not mean canonicity one way or the other.

You have misunderstood. I don’t discount them for being among the Dead Sea Scrolls. I’m just saying that being found among known inspired writings does not mean they too are inspired.

I’m kind of still waiting for you to back up the Church adding these books at Trent in light of the volumes of examples of these being in canons from the 4th century forward. Did I miss your answer in here?

First, the Hebrew people knew what was inspired of God. They were the God appointed keepers of the Hebrew Scriptures. They did not consider these books inspired.

Second, The canons before the 4th century were all the same and agree with the canon Protestant Bible.

Therefore, someone, at some point, must have added these books as the very earliest canons did not include them.

 

[guanophore]

Only three of the deuterocanonical books were found among the Dead Sea scrolls: Tobit, Sirach, and Baruch. The Dead Sea Scrolls included about 650 extra-biblical manuscripts which included uninspired writings such as songs, prayers, commentaries, and many secular works.

I realize that you have made yourself the pastor of the Church of Ginger2, and you are therefore your own Pope,Magesterium, etc. However, you are not authorized by anyone but yourself to decide what prayers and songs and writings are inspired by God. The fact that something is not in the canon does not mean it has not come from the Holy Spirit. This is the case with much of Divine Liturgy.

What the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed was that the major reason of dispute about the Septuagint, from Jerome as well as the Palestinians who canonized their canon after Christ, is that they were, in fact, in Hebrew. It was thought that perhaps they should not be included because they could not find Hebrew copies, and it turned out that the Church, guided by the HOly Spirit, ruled correctly in this matter 1600 years before the Scrolls were discovered.

In other words, Just because a book or letter was found among inspired writings, doesn’t mean that book is inspired. Does your church library contain uninspired Christian writings?

There are many beneficial spiritual writings in any good Christian library. Once again, you are employing a diversion tactic. Evidence has been provided to you that the deuterocanonical books were included in Christian Bibles from the day the canon was formed.

The first two mentioned were written during the silent time when there were no prophets. Prophets are those who speak for God. God tells them something and they tell others, either in words or in writings. While others can share truths about God, only prophets are speaking under inspiration

Evidence has also been provided to you that this is not the case. None of the gospel writers claimed to be prophets. In fact, most of the NT is written by people that did not claim to be prophets. Some of the OT writings were penned by those that did not claim to be prophets. You have set up a straw man, Ginger2. The Church chose the Septuagint to accompany the 27 books of the NT. If they were wrong, then you have no basis to believe that the 27 books they chose for the NT are correct either.

Baruch, on-the-other-hand, was supposedly written within the prophetic era.

That’s long enough for one post. We can discuss Baruch more later if you like.

Not another tactic to avoid the topic! :bigyikes:

No, thanks Ginger2. Nothing you have to say will have any validity until you are able to achieve the intellectual honesty to admit that your OP is erroneous. Catholics did not “add” books to the Bible. Until you are able to have the humility to admit this, what will be the use of discussing anything else?

 

[Pwrlftr]

This sounds like a handy dismissal.

Why do you think this is a “handy dismissal”? I simply pointed out what I believe to be an error in someones post.

The truth is that the councils knew what books were in the Septuagint,and when it canonized it along with the NT, it was because that was the version used by the Apostles. No books were “added” after that.

Let’s start w/ your last sentence…“No books were “added” after that.” I never said anything about anyone adding books so you may be reading something into my post that simply isn’t there.

You say that the council knew what books were in the septuagint that the apostles used. How do we know this? Is there a statement from the councils of either Hippo or Carthage that makes this claim?

It’s been awhile since I studied this but there are three or four septuagint manuscripts that we have available to us. If I remember correctly they are the Vaticanus, the Sinaiticus, the Alexandriunus and it seems like there was one more but I have forgotten that particualar manuscripts name. Anyway, they are all Christian copies of the septuagint that date only back to the late 3rd or early 4th century (if I remember correctly) and they contain different books. Some of the manuscripts omit some of the deutero’s and other manuscripts include apocryphal books.

Whether the deutero’s are canonical or not has nothing to do w/ their status in the septuagint. They are either inspired scripture or they aren’t. Whether the Jews recognized them as such or placed them in the septuagint has no real bearing on the matter as far as I can tell. If the church is infallible, why worry with what the Jews did or didn’t believe about them?

If you can provide some sort of evidence that shows what books the septuagint contained in Jesus’ day I would appreciate it. I don’t think I have ever seen anyone provide such documentation.

 

[guanophore]

First, the Hebrew people knew what was inspired of God. They were the God appointed keepers of the Hebrew Scriptures. They did not consider these books inspired.

You are right that the Hebrews who rejected Christ did not. There is too much in them that supports Christian theology. Clearly some of the Hebrews, though appointed by God, did not recognize God’s inspiration. They rejected Jesus, as well as the canon of Scripture He used. You have sided with those who rejected Christ. I wonder why?

Second, The canons before the 4th century were all the same and agree with the canon Protestant Bible.

This is a baseless assertion for which you have no evidence. another example of purporting untruths. What could be your motive, I wonder?

Do you have the ability to produce any facts to support this?
Or, perhaps you believe that repeating this to yourself will make it true?

Have you tried clicking your heels together? 'repeat “there is no place like home, there is no place like home…” Maybe you will wake up!

Therefore, someone, at some point, must have added these books as the very earliest canons did not include them.

This is so embarrassing, Ginger2. I hope you will do just a bit of research on this topic before posting any more untruths about it. Your actions only confirm that Abe was right.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Septuagint wasn’t translated all at once. I think the original “assignment” was to translate just the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the OT). The rest came about, but not in one sitting, the the first 5 books. But its pretty much understood that the Septuagint by Jesus’ time had all the Catholic OT, I believe Macabees 3&4, as well as Esdras 3&4, if I’m correct.

I think you are probably correct but I am not sure if we can know for sure one way or the other. The orthodox church has a canon that differs from both the protestant and Catholic canons and they of course also use the LXX.

The church recognized what was inspired scripture but I don’t think one can say that because a book was in the LXX it’s canonical. For one, I don’t think we can know what was exactly in the LXX that Jesus used. Also, how many different versions of the LXX were there? I don’t think we know.

 

[patrick457]

But not all inspiration is from God and only divinely inspired writings are considered God’s Word.

Define ‘inspiration’. What does inspiration mean to you?

 

[John_Augustine]

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.

The KJV is the Anglican Bible. From the XXXIX Articles:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

 

[ForMary]

You have that backwards…
The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. That means the Septuagint would be based on the Hebrew Bible.

I know this is false. But I’ll give you a chance to provide proof

What you don’t **know **is a lot! Me too, but…

The Greek translation of the Septuagint. Yes, the Septuagint is the first written account of the Tanakh and it was in Hebrew, which is why I added the last line of my post from which you quote. So, here you go…

“The translation was made from the Hebrew Bible by Hellenistic Jews during the period 275 - 100 BC at Alexandria. Initially the Septuagint was widely used by Greek - speaking Jews, but its adoption by the Christians, who used it in preference to the Hebrew original, …”
C H Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (1935); S Jellicoe, The LXX and Modern Studies (1968).

before I explain why these books were never in the Jewish Bible to begin with.

Save your time, the point of the post was to dismiss, as I clearly still do, that Catholics added books to the Bible. Not to enter into a contest of scholarship, which would be a different thread.

 

[guanophore]

Define ‘inspiration’. What does inspiration mean to you?

Please don’t encourage Ginger2 to get off track. She excels at derailing her own threads. She posts blatant misinformation as she did in the OP and then runs around in circles avoiding the evidence. What she has done here, by bringing up this point is try to avoid facing the error she posted in the OP.

It is an excellent question, of course, but irrelevant. She has asserted that Catholics “added” the deuterocanonicals to the scripture. This is clearly not true, and if we go off on these tangets she likes to create, it will only facilitate her escape from facing the falsehood she has purported.

 

[Ginger2]

Please, cite the text in context.

“…but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church…”

This doesn’t change the fact that they were first disputed and at a later time accepted which means they were added at some point.

 

[guanophore]

This doesn’t change the fact that they were first disputed and at a later time accepted which means they were added at some point.

No, Ginger, you are confused. There was no canon until the Church established it. There was no canon in existence for Christians to which anything could be added. The Church selected from the NT writings which ones best represented the infallible Teaching of the Apostles, and bound these together with the Alexandrian Septuagint to create what you know of today as a “Bible”. Prior to 382, this did not exist.

If the Church got it wrong, then there is no basis for you to accept your NT as inspired either.

 

[JRKH]

Please don’t encourage Ginger2 to get off track. She excels at derailing her own threads. She posts blatant misinformation as she did in the OP and then runs around in circles avoiding the evidence. What she has done here, by bringing up this point is try to avoid facing the error she posted in the OP.

It is an excellent question, of course, but irrelevant. She has asserted that Catholics “added” the deuterocanonicals to the scripture. This is clearly not true, and if we go off on these tangets she likes to create, it will only facilitate her escape from facing the falsehood she has purported.

Well Stated. I have yet to see Ginger address the mistake in her original post. Or to adequately address the points made about the OFFICIAL canonical lists from the early councils.
She seems to prefer to pick and choose pieces of others posts to address rather than address “inconvenient” facts. This also offers her the oportunity to, as you say, derail her own threads.

I tend to believe that Ginger is sincere but she, like many of us, (myself included sometimes) falls into the trap of trying to defend a position even after it is shown to be in error.

Peace to All
James

 

[Ginger2]

Please, cite the text in context.

"…but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church…

Also included is the book of the model of virtue Jesus son of Sirach,** and another falsely** ascribed work which is titled Wisdom of Solomon. … The second was never among the Hebrews, the very style of which reeks of Greek eloquence. And none of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people,** (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.**

You are proving my point. The full content does not change the meaning., but rather stregnthens it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

First, the Hebrew people knew what was inspired of God. They were the God appointed keepers of the Hebrew Scriptures. They did not consider these books inspired.

Second, The canons before the 4th century were all the same and agree with the canon Protestant Bible.

Therefore, someone, at some point, must have added these books as the very earliest canons did not include them.

This is not an argument for the books being added at Trent. It is an argument that they were added to the 4th century canons.

And when you say “all the canons” prior to the 4th century were the same which ones do you mean? For the ones you show, please show that these were closed canons.

 

[JRKH]

Although it appears that the thread may already be hopelessly derailed, I would like to try to summarize a bit.

The Original Post about the Catholic Church “Adding” books at Trent has, I believe been sufficiently debunked. It is clear that the Catholic Church held the 73 book canon as sacred from well before the Protestant Reformation.

So the next question that seems to be discussed is really whether the Church was correct in accepting these books as being inspired and worthy of inclusion in the Bible Canon.

We can debate back and forth various translations, ages of texts etc. but the real issue is not the content of the books or the particular translation. the real question must be whether the Early Councils of the Church erred when they included these books in their lists.

If they erred, then there is no assurance that Any of the Books of the Canon are validly inspired books. If the Council erred, then it was not protected by the Holy Spirit. Therefore the entire canon is suspect and not just the 7 OT books.
If the Councils were indeed Protected by the Holy Spirt, then the Books selected are ALL correct and the 66 book canon must be regarded as incomplete.

It really boils down to whether you accept the Church councils as God Protected or not, and whether you accept that God would protect His “Bible” from the beginning or not. The particulars of the Books themselves is of less importance.

Peace
James

 

[Ginger2]

Save your time, the point of the post was to dismiss, as I clearly still do, that Catholics added books to the Bible. Not to enter into a contest of scholarship, which would be a different thread.

But you are dismissing it on the false premise that Jews removed books. As a-matter-of-fact, your argument defies common sense.

The Catholic assertion concerning the Council of Jamnia discussing the canon is purely speculative. There is no transcript to prove this accusation.

There were no Christians present to witness what was discussed.
There is no evidence any of the Apocrypha were even discussed.

Christians don’t have a lot of info on this topic - probably because the Jews were not accustomed to fraternizing with Christians. So your “absolute” claims of what happened at Jamnia are all speculation.

Besides, Jews would not have done away with inspired Scriptures - not for any reason.

And even if by some far stretch of the imagination they would have, they would certainly have disposed of others like Isaiah, Hosea, Zechariah, Amos, and even Psalms - These books and others are the Scriptures Bereans used to test for truth about Jesus being the Christ. These are the books that tell prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.

 

[Ginger2]

This is not an argument for the books being added at Trent. It is an argument that they were added to the 4th century canons.

And when you say “all the canons” prior to the 4th century were the same which ones do you mean? For the ones you show, please show that these were closed canons.

The oldest canon of the Jewish OT is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras):

It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).

Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but names them only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.

Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian’s statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful." and “St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament …”

Since the earliest Jewish canon agrees with the current Jewish canon, the Jews obviously never removed books.

Since the earliest Christian canons agree and the deuteros were not included,

And since they were contested when first being considered for inclusion, as states the CE, they were not originally part of the canon …

Therefore it is evident they were added to the Bible - not removed as Catholics claim.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The oldest canon of the Jewish OT is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras):

It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).

Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but names them only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.

Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian’s statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful." and “St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament …”

Since the earliest Jewish canon agrees with the current Jewish canon, the Jews obviously never removed books.

Since the earliest Christian canons agree and the deuteros were not included,

And since they were contested when first being considered for inclusion, as states the CE, they were not originally part of the canon …

Therefore it is evident they were added to the Bible - not removed as Catholics claim.

Your list here doesn’t even agree with itself. One group has 24 and one has 22? And then you say they “all agree”? What?

And Melito did not include Esther or Nehemiah.

That’s just a quick glance at the problems in this post.

I’m with the others. This thread is unsubstantiated anti-Catholic polemics. All you have shown is that there was NOT a unanimous canon until the 4th century, which is what WE have been saying.

 

[guanophore]

But you are dismissing it on the false premise that Jews removed books. As a-matter-of-fact, your argument defies common sense.

You are mistaken, Ginger2. During the time of Jesus, there were several factious groups all using different canon. The Sadducees used only the Torah, the five books of Moses. This is one fact that Paul used to his advantage to start controversies in the Sanhedren. Since Saducees did not believe in Angels or Resurrection (all found outside the Torah), arguements quickly ensued. Some groups accepted the Torah, Psalms, Prophets, and “writings” (wisdom books). The Palestinian Jews did not "close"their Hebre canon for several hundred years after the Septuagint was completed. Prior to that time, the Church adopted the Septuagint because that was the canon used by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church.

So you see, the Palestinian Jews did not “remove”, they just never accepted that certain works were inspired. You have aligned yourself with the decision made by those that rejected Christ, and the teaching of the Apostles.

The Catholic assertion concerning the Council of Jamnia discussing the canon is purely speculative. There is no transcript to prove this accusation.

It is not an “accusation” Ginger2, it is a historical fact. I have never seen a transcript, either, but the canon they created at that time has survived to this day. You are claiming it is the correct one, since you are using it yourself. How much more evidence do you need?

There were no Christians present to witness what was discussed. There is no evidence any of the Apocrypha were even discussed.

You don;t know this either, though if they had been there, it would have been better to keep silent, because they were living under a death penalty at the time.

Furthermore, the Christian Church never considered the deuteros “apocryphal”. This is a misapplication ot the term.

And finally, what difference would it possibly make to you if there were any “Christians present to witness”? You have rejected the witness of the Christian Church who formed the canon in 382. Hundreds of bishops from all over Christendom who examined the 400+ works floating around and chose between them under the guidanc of the HS. I think Christian witness means a lot less to you than the witness of Ginger2.

Besides, Jews would not have done away with inspired Scriptures - not for any reason.

That is just the point, Ginger2. They did not believe these books were inspired. Just like the Saducees did not believe anything outside the Torah was “inspired”. Are you going to continue after their mistake, even after Jesus corrected them?

And even if by some far stretch of the imagination they would have, they would certainly have disposed of others like Isaiah, Hosea, Zechariah, Amos, and even Psalms - **These books and others are the Scriptures Bereans used to test for truth about Jesus being the Christ. These are the books that tell prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.**

They believed what they read should be applied differently, just as you do. For example, Scripture says that God appointed the Apostles and sent them with HIs own authority, and that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven. He instructed them to make disciples. The Apostles passed their authority to their successors, and God protected them from error just as He promised. Through them ,the HS inspired the NT and then later used them to form the canon.

However ,you will interpret all these things differently, because it does not fit your preconceived notions, just as the Jews did.

 

[Ginger2]

Your list here doesn’t even agree with itself. One group has 24 and one has 22?

Because some places two books were combined to form one book.

Thanks for asking.