Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[Pwrlftr]

For some more information on Jamnia, see Steve Ray’s article “The Council That Wasn’t” at catholic.com
Steve Ray:

Some cautionary points should be noted here:

1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.
2. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.
3. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.
4. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).

From my readings on the subject, modern scholars such as Metzger, MacDonal, Bruce, Brown and others reject the notion that the deutero’s were discussed much less rejected at this so-called council.

There is much more to the article than I copied, anyone who is interested in this should take a look see for themselves.

 

[Pwrlftr]

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?

I forget how the books are arranged into 22 or 24 book listings but either way (22 or 24) the number matches the protestant understanding of the canon. They are just grouped differently.

 

[JRKH]

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.

I find your statement above interesting.
You seem to believe that the Jews After the coming of Christ were more capable of discerning God inspired books than was the Christian Church that Christ founded.

I restate the question I posed earlier.
Do you believe that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were Protected By God and they got the Canon riight? Or do you believe these councils were NOT protected. This is the core issue for Christians. what the Jewish community did at this time is irrelevent.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

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

It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).

I am curious why you think these versions are “Jewish”. The Vulgate is a Catholic production, and the Peshitta was preserved by the Christian Church, which is why we have it today. When Syria was overrun by the Islamic Jihad, the Peshitta scrolls were hidden in Catholic monasteries. Furthermore, the Peshitta is not a canon.

No, the Septuagint predates both of these. I think you are grasping at straws, but at least you appear to be trying to do some research, which is an improvement.

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.

You are correct. The Palestinian Jews failed to include some of the books when they closed their canon 3-400 years after the Septuagint was completed. They, like the Saducees, failed to recognize certain books as inspired, just as they failed to recognize that Jesus is the Messiah. It is curious why you would wish to align yourself with their decisions.

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

You have yet to respond to the early councils. Unless you can do this, such assertions are baseless, and misleading.

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 theirs. C’mon Ginger2, why are you avoiding these councils? What “earlier” canons do you think existed?

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

No, Ginger2. There has been contestation about the true faith since John the Baptist began to preach. We see these contests in the Scripture, at the Council of Jerusalem, and with the rising of every single heresy. People contesting the truth (such as yourself) does NOT invalidate the Truth!

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

There was no “bible”, Ginger2, before the Catholic Church created it. The Septuagint was included in it from the beginning. This is the Truth. Your contestation of it does not invalidate it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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

Oh, in that case they all rejected Esther and Nehemiah, and yet here you are saying that their canon was the same as the Protestants’ today.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I forget how the books are arranged into 22 or 24 book listings but either way (22 or 24) the number matches the protestant understanding of the canon. They are just grouped differently.

What are the 24 books in the Protestant canon?

 

[Pwrlftr]

What are the 24 books in the Protestant canon?

Marco,

I will have to go back and do some digging on that. Check in again later today and I’ll try to let you know how they are/were arranged. I just don’t remember off the top of my head.

 

[MarcoPolo]

What “earlier” canons do you think existed?

Ginger has claimed Melito’s canon matches the Protestant canon.
Melito’s OT canon is as follows:
The five books of Moses–Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books. (Melito, Book of Extracts, c. 170)
All sources I have seen agree Esther is missing. Others also state Nehemiah is not included under any of these other names. This does not match the Protestant canon. No?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Ginger has claimed Melito’s canon matches the Protestant canon.
Melito’s OT canon is as follows:
The five books of Moses–Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books. (Melito, Book of Extracts, c. 170)
All sources I have seen agree Esther is missing. Others also state Nehemiah is not included under any of these other names. This does not match the Protestant canon. No?

Melito’s canon doesn’t exactly match the protestant canon. It can be used to show the early Christians didn’t all understand the deutero’s were scripture and that since Melito travelled to Jerusalem to learn the authentic canon, I suppose it can be used to show the Jews didn’t accept the deutero’s either.

You can find various theologians and church fathers who rejected the deutero’s all the way up until Trent (Cajetan comes to mind) but is that really relevant?

 

[MarcoPolo]

You can find various theologians and church fathers who rejected the deutero’s all the way up until Trent (Cajetan comes to mind) but is that really relevant?

Relevant perhaps, but inconclusive. Because whenever there were differences of opinions, the Church was always there to solve the dilemma since the time of Acts 15. And the deuterocanonical books were fairly consistently accepted in the Christian era. It is also specious because

1. The Jewish canons were not “closed”
2. Often times when someone listed the Hebrew canon, they were simply recounting what was the current “Hebrew” canon! It doesn’t even mean the author agreed that this was the total canon.

The best book on this subject is Gary Michuta’s Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, which exhaustively demonstrates the history of the varying canons.

At the end of the day, I’ll have to agree with James a few posts ago. The OP has been “sufficiently debunked.”

 

[ForMary]

This issue has been debated for hundreds of years by individuals who can stay on topic and have their history in order.

One must keep in mind that there was not a single book from which facsimiles were made, but hand written copies that floated around. Depending on the scribe there may will be discrepancies between any number of the same book copied within the same century even. That doesn’t mean it did, it just means it could.

Was there a reformation and subsequent separation from the Catholic Church? Yes.

Was there a counter-reformation by the Catholic Church? Most likely, yes.

Did Catholics add books to the bible? No.

At the end of the day, I’ll have to agree with James a few posts ago. The OP has been “sufficiently debunked.”

Ditto

 

[Ginger2]

Oh, in that case they all rejected Esther and Nehemiah, and yet here you are saying that their canon was the same as the Protestants’ today.

I did not say they were identical. They agree with the books in todays Protestant Bibles. None of them include even one deutero book … The canons of Hippo and Carthage are not exactly the same as Trent either. Your point, I thought was to prove they were accepted from the 4th century. If you want to debate Melito because it is not an exact match, then please avoid hypocrisy and and dump your Hippo.Carthage argument on the same grounds.

As for Melito, I guess I cut the excerpt off too soon, "St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament. While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito’s restricted canon is explicable on another ground. - Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger has claimed Melito’s canon matches the Protestant canon.
170)[/INDENT]

All sources I have seen agree Esther is missing. Others also state Nehemiah is not included under any of these other names. This does not match the Protestant canon. No?

So your sources conflict with one another!!!

Some say Nehemiah is missing others say it is included… and you want me to accept your sources as accurate.

Interesting.

 

[Ginger2]

Melito’s canon doesn’t exactly match the protestant canon. It can be used to show the early Christians didn’t all understand the deutero’s were scripture and that since Melito travelled to Jerusalem to learn the authentic canon, I suppose it can be used to show the Jews didn’t accept the deutero’s either.

You can find various theologians and church fathers who rejected the deutero’s all the way up until Trent (Cajetan comes to mind) but is that really relevant?

One thing you left out is that Melito was considered a prophet in his day. Can a prophet of God make such a serious and extensive error? Just asking.

 

[Pwrlftr]

One thing you left out is that Melito was considered a prophet in his day. Can a prophet of God make such a serious and extensive error? Just asking.

I didn’t know he was considered a prophet.

If he was a prophet he apparently did make a mistake, that or both the Catholic and protestant churches are in error. It seems his list of canonical books left one out that both side consider canonical. I think the list was provided earlier in this thread.

 

[JRKH]

I find your statement above interesting.
You seem to believe that the Jews After the coming of Christ were more capable of discerning God inspired books than was the Christian Church that Christ founded.

I restate the question I posed earlier.
Do you believe that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were Protected By God and they got the Canon riight? Or do you believe these councils were NOT protected. This is the core issue for Christians. what the Jewish community did at this time is irrelevent.

Peace
James

Well it appears that Ginger would rather debate the various intricacies of the developing canon than answer the simple and straightforward question I asked above.

The fact remains that, regardless of what might have happened elsewhere, the Great Church councils accepted and included the septuigent OT in the canon along with the 27 books of the NT. Either these Councils were Protected or they were not. The answer to this question is the determining factor for whether the Bible is to be believed an accepted in Total or not. For it is through these councils of the Church that we have the assurance that These Books and not others are “God Breathed”. All the rest is little more than dust in the wind.

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

So your sources conflict with one another!!!

No, one source says Esther and Nehemiah are excluded from Melito. Another just mentions Esther. It’s unanimous that there is no Esther. Which is enough to debunk the claim that Melito’s canon matched the Protestant one. Good day. :tiphat:

 

[patrick457]

I believe that the OP’s assertion that:

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

Is already answered. If Catholics did add these books during the time of the Reformation, then what are the Deuterocanicals doing in most copies of Scriptures that existed before it, notwithstanding the variations and whatnot?

 

[Pwrlftr]

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?

The number of Old Testament books (not counting the deuterocanonicals) stands at 39; in the Hebrew Bible they are usually counted as 24. The discrepancy occurs because Ezra and Nehemiah are counted as one book, as are each of the following—First and Second Kings; First and Second Chronicles; and the 12 Prophets (Hosea through Malachi). Sometimes Judges and Ruth are also conflated, as are Jeremiah and Lamentations, making for 22 books, the number attested by Josephus (c.A.D. 36–A.D. 96).

 

[patrick457]

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

One needs to understand Judaism as it was during the 1st century AD.

During the time of Jesus, Judaism was still not, in a sense, unified. There were various factions, who, while sharing some common things, had different specific beliefs. Also, during this time (1st century AD), the idea of a closed, well-established Scriptural canon was still forming; while the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Nevi’im) are pretty much similar to the form they are in today, which books went to where are still a matter of debate. For example, some regarded Daniel and the Psalms as among the Nevi’im, but others class them among the Ketuvim.

Plus, different groups accepted different writings. For example, the Sadducees (Tzadokim) accepted only the Torah as Scripture, while the Essenes evidently regarded the book of Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and the Reworked Pentateuch as part of the Torah and accepted 1 Enoch, while the Pharisees are a bit more conservative in their choice of books. Josephus was part of the Pharisaic party (as evidenced by the prominence of Pharisaism in his later writings and his statement that he followed Pharisaic teaching in public life Life 12]), and thus would have cited the books which his sect would have regarded as Scripture.

Thus he 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, his quote needs to read within the context of Second Temple Judaism: Josephus’ comments should be more appropriately read in relation to his overall aim: convincing gentiles that the (limited, in his view) Jewish canon is more superior and legitimate.

(Continued next post)