Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That can’t be accurate as the deuteros were originally placed apart from the Protocanical Scriptures in Jerome’s Vulgate. Not sure if the arrangement is the same in modern publications of the Vulgate or not. But, many translations of the Vulgate rearrange the order of the books and mix them amongst the Protocanicals.

Again, I’m not sure why they don’t keep the same order.

But, the point is Jerome included them with his opinion that they were not inspired right in the Vulgate.
Jerome was not the authority. It was the Church’s authority, not Jerome, what went in the Vulgate. They were included in the Vulgate because they were declared inspired.
Luther included them also with his opinion that they were not inspired.

The Council of Trent is the first time they were officially declared inspired. There is no declaration to their inspiration before Trent. And the fact that Jerome was allowed to state they were not equal authority enforces that opinion that they were not yet declared inspired.
Then what did the opinion of Hippo, Carthage and Pope Damasus represent as far as “officially declared inspired”?
Jerome didn’t speak for the church, but the church didn’t object to his declaring the uninspired in the Vulgate.
Wrong. Jerome expressed an opinion, not a declaration from authority.
 
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.
Well, Jerome met with quite a bit of opposition at that time due to his opinions. His prefaces don’t tell a lot one way or the other beyond his view, which was obviously not universally held.

Carthage and Hippo were local synods, later recognized by Popes as to the canons they presented. So these would be the books used in the Liturgy for the Church.

Technically, the language of Trent as I understand it does not testify to a “closed” canon, but rather that “these books are canonical.” Although there is no sign of it changing.
 
Well, Jerome met with quite a bit of opposition at that time due to his opinions. His prefaces don’t tell a lot one way or the other beyond his view, which was obviously not universally held.
I agree. While Jerome certainly had no authority I am still wondering why his prefaces were allowed.
Technically, the language of Trent as I understand it does not testify to a “closed” canon, but rather that “these books are canonical.” Although there is no sign of it changing.
If I remember correctly, this is also the opinion of Michuta. I think this was based on his hypothesis of the council fathers at Trent passing over one the books in silence. You can go to Michuta’s website to read more on this issue. I just don’t remember which book he was talking about.
 
Well, Jerome met with quite a bit of opposition at that time due to his opinions.
That is incorrect.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

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.

But that sentiment was widespread before the Vulgate, also:

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. …The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, …

The influence of Origen’s and Athanasius’s restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, **excluding the deuteros from canonical **rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them “ecclesiastical” books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures.
 
That is incorrect.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

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.

But that sentiment was widespread before the Vulgate, also:

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. …The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, …

The influence of Origen’s and Athanasius’s restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, **excluding the deuteros from canonical **rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them “ecclesiastical” books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures.
So… Jerusalem and four Fathers represents “wide-spread sentiment”???
 
One more thing…

Pope John Paul II completed revisions to the Vulgate started by his predecessor.

Here is an excerpt: "In realizing this revision, “the old text of the Vulgate edition was taken into consideration word for word, namely, whenever the original texts are accurately rendered, such as they are found in modern critical editions; however the text was prudently improved, whenever it departs from them or interprets them less correctly.”

In light of this information I don’t see how the Vulgate could be the RC’s ex-cathedral version of Scriptures. If some of the texts were not entirely accurate, How can we be certain the list of books to be included was accurate. 🤷

Here is the reference:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JPTHESAU.HTM
Apostolic Constitution SCRIPTURARUM THESAURUS
Pope John Paul II
 
So… Jerusalem and four Fathers represents “wide-spread sentiment”???
These are only excerpts. I didn’t include the whole text. But it clearly states Jerome had great influence in this matter, at least concerning the West. And no where do I see it claim Jerome was met with “quite a bit of opposition” which is what I was responding to.

This is a misconception according to the Catholic Encyclopedia - which by the way, would be biased in your favor, not mine.
 
No, it’s correct.
Then show me quotes from prominent fathers of the Church who opposed him directly. The were church fathers who had an opposing view but there were many that agreed with Jerome.
I don’t know what that article is referencing Rufinus for. …
He is one of many that opposed the deuteros. If Rufinus is not a respected church father that doesn’t effect that fact that many highly respected church fathers rejected the deuteros as being uninspired.

To say he had opposition from the pope is a stretch as the pope apparently endorsed Jerome’s comments by allowing them to be included in the Vulgate.
 
Hippo and Carthage (2 non-ecumenical and therefore non-infallible) councils declared the canon. Florence again in the late 1400’s (?) declared the canon again and finally Trent made the infallible pronouncement of the OT canon.

But, just after Hippo and Carthage the church sent out the vulgate which included Jerome’s prefaces to each of the deuterocanonical books which cast doubt upon the canonocity of the deutero’s. Later on (several centuries later) this caused doubt with regards to the inspiration of the dueteros.

Why do you think the church sent the vulgate out w/ Jerome’s negative comments on the deutero’s just after Hippo and Carthage?
I think a key point that is missing is that the Church did in fact declare that Canon infallible. From our pov in 2008-2009, it makes no difference when the Church declared it infallibly, because the Canon’s were the same from the fourth century on. If you understand infallibility, then you realize that the Canon in the 4th century was every bit as infallible as the exact same Canon was in the 16th century at the council of Trent. In other words, just because the Church formally declared the infallibility of the Canon later in history, does not mean the exact same Canon in the 4th century was somehow fallible. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage, along with the Pope, properly affirmed the full Canon in the 4th century, even though the infallible delaration would wait for many centuries.
 
Then show me quotes from prominent fathers of the Church who opposed him directly. The were church fathers who had an opposing view but there were many that agreed with Jerome.
Some opposed. Some didn’t. So what. That’s what we’ve been saying all along. And if you won’t take the time to read what I reference for you, I’ll post some of the excerpts…If I have time. 🙂
He is one of many that opposed the deuteros. If Rufinus is not a respected church father that doesn’t effect that fact that many highly respected church fathers rejected the deuteros as being uninspired.
I edited out the sentence from Rufinus, because my memory is unclear on him. But here is a reference that says Rufinus indeed opposed Jerome. And when I have access to Gary’s book, I can post his quotes too. And don’t worry, I have no problem saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia is prone to error. 🙂
 
Some opposed. Some didn’t. So what. That’s what we’ve been saying all along. And if you won’t take the time to read what I reference for you, I’ll post some of the excerpts…If I have time. 🙂
Well, we agree on that. 🙂 Some agreed some didn’t. The point I am making is I don’t see how this could have been proclaimed ex-cathdral if several church fathers were still expressing their disagreement after Hippo and Carthage.

Also, I have always agreed with Jerome that there is nothing wrong with reading these books. So being in the Bible under his clarification that they are not equal to the protocanicals is not a problem.
I edited out the sentence from Rufinus, because my memory is unclear on him. But here is a reference that says Rufinus indeed opposed Jerome. And when I have access to Gary’s book, I can post his quotes too. And don’t worry, I have no problem saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia is prone to error. 🙂
But in this case, how do you know whether it is your link or the CE that is in error?
 
For Protestants, rejecting those seven books is just status quo, yet no Catholic should ever reject them or place them in an un-inspired category, they are part of the full Canon of Scripture as defined in the 4th century and affirmed many times since. Those are facts and are really not debatable.

Catholics beware of wolves in sheeps clothing…they are everywhere.
 
FYI.

For anyone who doesn’t want to take the time to read Gary Michuta’s whole book Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, here are two 1-hour MP3 interviews with him after he wrote the book.
If Gary Michuta says so then I guess it’s as good as gospel. :rolleyes:

You just gt thru telling me the CE is a source that can error. Now you want to hold out an individual as a reliable source? 🤷

“this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah”* (Luke 11:50-51; Matthew 23:35)

Timewise, this takes us from Genesis thru Malachi of the Protestant Bibles.

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Prophetwise, this covers the martyrs and prophets of the Protestant Bible

Jesus referred to the OT canon and omitted the deuteros
 
I discussed this in another thread, and suddenly the thread was deleted without any given reason. So I’ll try again…

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.
Obey your superiors and be subject to them, for they keep watch as having to render an account of your souls; so that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for that would not be expedient for you."
Hebrews 13:17

Martin Luther, the originator of the false man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura and its accompanying individual interpretation of Holy Scripture, obviously avoided that verse, and many others as well. Sola Scriptura, or Bible only, means, “if it is not in the Bible, I will not believe it”.
 
If Gary Michuta says so then I guess it’s as good as gospel. :rolleyes:

You just gt thru telling me the CE is a source that can error. Now you want to hold out an individual as a reliable source? 🤷

“this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah”* (Luke 11:50-51; Matthew 23:35)

Timewise, this takes us from Genesis thru Malachi of the Protestant Bibles.

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Prophetwise, this covers the martyrs and prophets of the Protestant Bible

Jesus referred to the OT canon and omitted the deuteros
I am sorry, but you are just flat wrong, and people here have over-and-over again proved where you are wrong. You refuse to listen and you will not give the consent of your own will to Jesus and His Church. That is your choice and I certainly respect your ability to choose as you will. However, well formed and well educated Catholics know better.

I believe firmly that Protestant Christianity represents the first woe as described in the Apocalypse and that was of course done so that many hundreds of millions would leave the true faith, as you have done.

Ultimately, there really is no discussing these issues with you, for you have an anti-Catholic agenda that causes you to be unable to discern real truths even when they are lovingly and respectfully presented to you. I mean no disrespect at all, you seem like a nice person, yet I have seen your flavor of anti-Catholic agendas many times and they do not fool me for a second.

May the good Lord bless you, keep you and illuminate your heart so that you will come back home to the Catholic Church, where literally every Christian belongs.

Happy New Year…over and out. 🙂 🙂 🙂
 
I discussed this in another thread, and suddenly the thread was deleted without any given reason. So I’ll try again…

Catholics have seven extra books in their Bible. These books are called “deuterocanonical” They are in the Old Testament. (The New Testament is the same for both Catholics and Protestants.)

The books are: Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)

I believe Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther.
That’s absurd, because these books were canonized before Martin Luther in the forth century. If fact, the Qumran findings have some of these books, which predate Christianity.

See also: How big is your book of Daniel?
 
Martin Luther, the originator of the false man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura …
I’m afraid you are pff topic.

There is another thread on Sola Scripture that is active right now if you would like to discuss SS.

🙂
 
40.png
PeterK:
Peter Holter,
I appreciated your nice thorough even-handed response to Ben. I wish I could have produced the same. It’s diffficult not to pontificate in these forums. But some questions bring it out. For example, Ben’s question seemed like a “gotcha” post.
Anyway I respecct the labor you put into your response. It was a generous thing to do especially over Christmas.

Pax,
PeterK
Wow! Thank you for this very encouraging post!

I also enjoyed your post. It reminded me of Jesus’ question that He put to the Pharisees…

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet’?

If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. – Matthew 22:41-46​

It reminded me of it in this way… that Jesus turns our attention away from His being the Son of David and turns it towards His being the Lord of David. Perhaps the Scriptures foresaw such a struggle as Ben Masada is now having.

It also reminds me of Peter’s response to Jesus after the Bread of Life discourse: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69). In other words, We don’t really understand what You’ve just said or in what way Your words could be true, but because of the things we’ve seen You do, and because of the knowable truth of other things You’ve said, we believe that even these words are true - although we know not in what way - because based on everything else, we believe that You are the Holy One of God!

Ben’s struggle also reminds me of Augustine’s stirring conclusion to his 102nd Epistle:

I have answered to the best of my power the questions proposed; but let him who proposed them become now a Christian at once, lest, if he delay until he has finished the discussion of all difficulties connected with the sacred books, he come to the end of this life before he pass from death to life. For it is reasonable that he inquire as to the resurrection of the dead before he is admitted to the Christian sacraments. Perhaps he ought also to be allowed to insist on preliminary discussion of the question proposed concerning Christ—why He came so late in the world’s history, and of a few great questions besides, to which all others are subordinate. But to think of finishing all such questions as those concerning the words, “In what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you,” and concerning Jonah, before he becomes a Christian, is to betray great unmindfulness of man’s limited capacities, and of the shortness of the life which remains to him. For there are innumerable questions the solution of which is not to be demanded before we believe, lest life be finished by us in unbelief. When, however, the Christian faith has been thoroughly received, these questions behoove to be studied with the utmost diligence for the pious satisfaction of the minds of believers. Whatever is discovered by such study ought to be imparted to others without vain self-complacency; if anything still remain hidden, we must bear with patience an imperfection of knowledge which is not prejudicial to salvation.

Thanks again for your very encouraging post! May the LORD bless you and keep you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top