Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[NotWorthy]

I am sorry that last post did not print what it was supposed to - let me see if I can find it while I am here at work. Sorry.

You can still delete it, if you’d like. 10 more minutes.

 

[joandarc2008]

You can still delete it, if you’d like. 10 more minutes.

Didn’t get to it quick enough - sorry that whole work thing getting in the way.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It wasn’t until Trent that all wiggle room was removed, but Trent certainly didn’t add these books as our good sister Ginger claims.

I would also assert that while not using as strong of language as Trent, the ecumenical Council of Florence, in session 11, February 4, 1442 (long before Luther), repeated the canon as well.

 

[NotWorthy]

I would also assert that while not using as strong of language as Trent, the ecumenical Council of Florence, in session 11, February 4, 1442 (long before Luther), repeated the canon as well.

Didn’t know that.

Why was it brought up at Florence? Was this in any way influenced by the Jewish Community finally closing their OT Canon? I think they closed their Canon around this time.

 

[jlhargus]

I still don’t know why the vulgate was promulgated along w/ the disparaging remarks by Jerome concerning the canonocity of the deutero’s.

JL: Could it be as simple as the Church wanting feed back before an infallible decision. On one hand saying here is the canon, on the other hand some disagree, it’s open for discussion.

I’m glad this line didn’t end, I have learned a good deal and that’s why I’m here…

 

[Ginger2]

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!

So, to a certain extent I was mistaken. The Catholic Church did not add the books as a counter to the Reformation. But [the Council of Trent] 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.

I never said he did.

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

Apparently, you have never heard the phrase “quit while you’re ahead”

Are you here for the sake of arguing?

I saw what Jerome had written. I learned things I had not known before. I find this a profitable outcome.

But if you want to argue, it can only lead to my pointing out that Catholic scholars have misled us when they claim ML “removed” books. He did not remove them any more then Jerome did. Scholars who distort the facts do the Catholic cause no service.

I feel this thread has served its purpose so I will leave now.

Have a Happy New Year!

 

[NotWorthy]

I never said he did.

OH?!? Then you didn’t answer the original question:

  			Originally Posted by **Ginger2** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4608694#post4608694) 				
  		*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***.

Did Jerome, as a member of the Church remove them, or was he simply giving his opinion? You sound like that you now agree that St. Jerome was merely giving his opinion.

But he ended up inserting them at the insistence of the Pope as inspired text, no matter his opinion. That means the Church could not have waited until Trent to “for the first time” claim that they were inspired.

Apparently, you have never heard the phrase “quit while you’re ahead”

I follow the phrase, “when you’ve made the sell, shut up”.

Are you here for the sake of arguing?

I hope that’s not what you think.

I saw what Jerome had written. I learned things I had not known before. I find this a profitable outcome.

But if you want to argue, it can only lead to my pointing out that Catholic scholars have misled us when they claim ML “removed” books. He did not remove them any more then Jerome did.

Let’s see…

A) The Catholic Church held that the deutero’s were inspired from Her very first official Canon and every re-examination of the Canon for the next 1100 years.
B) The Protestant Reformation comes out with a Canon that places the Deutero’s as “profitable” but not “inspired”.

ergo, it would seem that:

C) SOMEBODY removed them. I’ll give you a hint. That somebody is not, has never been, nor ever will be, the Catholic Church!

Scholars who distort the facts do the Catholic cause no service.

Amen!!! I hope I haven’t proved to distort any facts, and I would question anybody that I feel has, as I hope anyone would question me if they felt I distorted them.

I feel this thread has served its purpose so I will leave now.

Have a Happy New Year!

Have a joyous New Year yourself and all who have suffered through this thread!!!

Consider yourself worthy of receiving numerous indulgences if you’ve read the entire thread!!!

 

[Pwrlftr]

JL: Could it be as simple as the Church wanting feed back before an infallible decision. On one hand saying here is the canon, on the other hand some disagree, it’s open for discussion.

I’m glad this line didn’t end, I have learned a good deal and that’s why I’m here…

That is a possibility. I hadn’t been able to come up w/ anything at all so you are ahead of me.

 

[joandarc2008]

Thank you all for this - I am still new to the Church but have been studying for a while. This history lesson is amazing - thanks for your patience.

God bless,

 

[Pwrlftr]

I hope I didn’t present it that way. The Pope blessed them and made them the official Canon accepted by the Church. I’ll go with that. Since these weren’t Ecumenical Councils, but local councils, then that doesn’t make it DeFide.

But until the Pope makes a Dogmatic Statement making it binding on the Church Faithful, the Church faithful can question it all the want. I’m sorry if I led you to believe it was “Case Closed - no further discussions allowed”. It wasn’t until Trent that all wiggle room was removed, but Trent certainly didn’t add these books as our good sister Ginger claims.

Interesting.

Remember that just before Trent there were still Catholic theologian such as Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes who also rejected the canonicity of the deutero’s. Cajetan was ML’s opponent at the Diet of Worms. Also, at the Council of Trent there were apparently some council fathers who were not convinced of the deutero’s canonocity. I am sure that they accepted them as canonical at the end of council but as you pointed out there was some wiggle room before Trent.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Have a joyous New Year yourself and all who have suffered through this thread!!!

Consider yourself worthy of receiving numerous indulgences if you’ve read the entire thread!!!

I think the thread has gotten better over the past 24 hrs…less bickering and more discussion. Wonder how long that will last?

I hope she decides to hang out here some more.

 

[Ginger2]

OH?!? Then you didn’t answer the original question:

Did Jerome, as a member of the Church remove them, or was he simply giving his opinion?

That was not the original question.

No one ever said Jerome removed books. The original post was that the Catholic Church added these posts to counter the reformation. I was working under the false assumption that ML had removed the books, but he didn’t removed them. ML included them in the same manner as Jerome.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Are you here for the sake of arguing?

I don’t think NotWorthy is, but a conservative guess would be that about 80% of the other posters are. Just go back and look at the earlier posts…

 

[NotWorthy]

Interesting.

Remember that just before Trent there were still Catholic theologian such as Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes who also rejected the canonicity of the deutero’s. Cajetan was ML’s opponent at the Diet of Worms. Also, at the Council of Trent there were apparently some council fathers who were not convinced of the deutero’s canonocity. I am sure that they accepted them as canonical at the end of council but as you pointed out there was some wiggle room before Trent.

Yes, Cajetan and Ximenes are often brought up when accusing Catholics of “adding at Trent”. We must remember that much of their doubts were based on the false assumption that the deutero’s had no Hebrew/Aramaic acceptance. That has been revealed to be a false assumption.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Didn’t know that.

Why was it brought up at Florence? Was this in any way influenced by the Jewish Community finally closing their OT Canon? I think they closed their Canon around this time.

I’m not familiar enough with Florence beyond the actual text, but in context, it looks like they asserted the canon in the face of heresies like Manichaeism which denied the OT God and NT God inspired both Testaments, saying one was the God of visible things and the NT God is of invisible things. They perhaps thought it worthy to repeat the full canon as being all inspired by the one and same God.

It is also worthy to note the wording of the ecumenical 2nd Council of Nicea (787) in which they elude to having accepted the canons declared earlier, including at local synods (i.e. Rome, Hippo, Carthage)
Since these things really are such and have been testified to us in these ways, we exult in them as a person would if he were to come across a great mass of booty. We joyfully embrace the sacred canons and we maintain complete and unshaken their regulation, both those expounded by those trumpets of the Spirit, the apostles worthy of all praise, and those from the six holy universal synods* and from the synods assembled locally** for the promulgation of such decrees, and from our holy fathers. *In other words, regarding comments on Scripture, anything ecumenical councils said about them, or local councils regarding Scripture, had, through 787, been maintained. Granted this is an allusion, but shows consistency throughout the centuries.

 

[Pwrlftr]

That was not the original question.

No one ever said Jerome removed books. The original post was that the Catholic Church added these posts to counter the reformation. I was working under the false assumption that ML had removed the books, but he didn’t removed them. ML included them in the same manner as Jerome.

I haven’t put the two together before but the vulgate was sent out by Pope (don’t know his name) along w/ Jerome’s commentary/prefaces to the deutero’s (negative on the deutero’s) and Luther published his bible delegating the deutero’s to less than canonical status.

All of this occured before Trent which was the first infallible council closing the canon of the OT for the Catholic Church.

Am I right?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I’m not familiar enough with Florence beyond the actual text, but in context, it looks like they asserted the canon in the face of heresies like Manichaeism which denied the OT God and NT God inspired both Testaments, saying one was the God of visible things and the NT God is of invisible things. They perhaps thought it worthy to repeat the full canon as being all inspired by the one and same God.

It is also worthy to note the wording of the ecumenical 2nd Council of Nicea (787) in which they elude to having accepted the canons declared earlier, including at local synods (i.e. Rome, Hippo, Carthage)
Since these things really are such and have been testified to us in these ways, we exult in them as a person would if he were to come across a great mass of booty. We joyfully embrace the sacred canons and we maintain complete and unshaken their regulation, both those expounded by those trumpets of the Spirit, the apostles worthy of all praise, and those from the six holy universal synods** and from the synods assembled locally** for the promulgation of such decrees, and from our holy fathers. In other words, regarding comments on Scripture, anything ecumenical councils said about them, or local councils regarding Scripture, had, through 787, been maintained. Granted this is an allusion, but shows consistency throughout the centuries.

I don’t think the Church has been inconsistent in it’s councils but I guess I don’t understsand what the councils of Carthage and Hippo accomplished w/ regards to the canon of the OT.

In particular since after the two early councils the vulgate was sent out w/ Jerome’s prefaces to the deutero’s which later cased some to doubt their canoncity.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Yes, Cajetan and Ximenes are often brought up when accusing Catholics of “adding at Trent”. We must remember that much of their doubts were based on the false assumption that the deutero’s had no Hebrew/Aramaic acceptance. That has been revealed to be a false assumption.

You are probably right, the reason I brought this up is to substantiate (big word for me) the fact that you brought up. Namely that there was wiggle room on accepting the deutero’s before Trent.

I guess I am not so sure what the councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Florence (thanks to Marco Polo) accomplished w/ regards to the canon.

 

[Ginger2]

I haven’t put the two together before but the vulgate was sent out by Pope (don’t know his name) along w/ Jerome’s commentary/prefaces to the deutero’s (negative on the deutero’s) and Luther published his bible delegating the deutero’s to less than canonical status.

All of this occured before Trent which was the first infallible council closing the canon of the OT for the Catholic Church.

Am I right?

That is my understanding. The only thing I’ve learned new is that Luther published his translations including all the same books as Jerome. Luther also made a comment on the Deuteros similar to Jerome’s statements. The arrangement might have been a little different, but the same books were included in both Bibles.

That information really sheds new light on the whole issue!

 

[NotWorthy]

That was not the original question.

No one ever said Jerome removed books. The original post was that the Catholic Church added these posts to counter the reformation. I was working under the false assumption that ML had removed the books, but he didn’t removed them. ML included them in the same manner as Jerome.

And that was the “original question” I was referring to. Original being the “quote links” that you and I are currently on, not the original thread. I’m sorry. I know what I mean to say, but not always what it will be understood as. Mea Culpa.

Now, to your point that "ML included them in the same manner as Jerome" (emphasis mine), that is incorrect.

Jerome wished them to be declared “non inspired” but was corrrected by the Pope. Jerome had no authority to declare them inspired or profitable. His role was to translate the Church Authorized Scriptures from Greek to Latin. Hence, in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, the Deutero’s were part of the Inspired Scriptures - no less than any of the other books.

Martin Luther moved them to the “profitable” column, no longer placing them as “inspired” books. ML did not have the authority to do this, but he did it nonetheless.

BTW, I’m glad your still here and didn’t leave. I understand. It’s like watching a train wreck. You know you shouldn’t, but you just can’t look away, eh?