Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[itsjustdave1988]

Ginger2,

Can you tell me why Protestants reject the (larger) version of the Book of Daniel which Jerome and Origen accepted as Scripture, and as Origen testified, was “our Scripture” and “found in every Church of Christ?”

Every ancient Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture of other than fragmentary form includes the larger version, portions of which were also found among the Qumran caves. By what authority do Protestants reject it?

 

[Ginger2]

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.

Rev 9:
And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man…

The first woe is past;

lol Are you suggesting that talking with me is like torture?

I know you are not calling me a locust, because these locust were given power to torture the unsaved.

Either way it is a good thing I have a sense of humor.

 

[irishpatrick]

Rev 9:
And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man…

The first woe is past;

lol Are you suggesting that talking with me is like torture?

Not at all. I am saying that the reformation was the first woe…it caused hundreds of millions to leave Jesus’ true Church.

 

[twb1621]

Deuterocanonical Books
Church Fathers comments on the works included in the Septuagint;

“Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? or, Who shall resist the power of His strength?’[Wisdom 12:12,ll:22] When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away? All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His counsel. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. And there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not heard.’[Ps. 19:1-3]”
Clement of Rome,To the Corinthians, 27:5(c A.D. 80),in ANF,I:12

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death.’[Tobit 4:10,12:9] Be all of you subject one to another?[1 Pt 5:5] having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,’[1 Pt 2:12] that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed![Isa 52:5] Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.
Polycarp,To the Phillipians,10(A.D. 135),in ANF,I:35

" ‘Be just in your judgement’:[Deut 1:16,17 Prov 31:9] make no distinction between man and man when correcting transgressions. Do not waver in your decision. ‘Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving’[Sirach 4:31]"
Didache,4:3-5(A.D. 140),in ACW,VI:17

“Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song off Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.”
Melito of Sardes,Fragment in Eusebius’ Ecclesiatical History,4:26(A.D. 177),in NPNF2,I:206

Additional Information at cin.org/users/jgallegos/deutero.htm

 

[Ginger2]

Deuterocanonical Books
Church Fathers comments on the works included in the Septuagint;

We have already established church fathers who denied the inspiration of the Deuteros, quoted from the Septuagint.

So I’m not sure what your point is…many church fathers also quoted secular works, such as Plato, and Aristotle.

Altho not considered to hold authority concerning doctrine, at least the deuteros were considered of some value.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…at least the deuteros were considered of some value.

But there were some deuteros which were considered more than just “of some value,” which Protestants reject, such as the larger version of the Book of Daniel which “every Church of Christ” considered Scripture, as did Jerome and Origen.

I was hoping you could answer the question I posted, here: #**314
**

 

[Ginger2]

But there were some deuteros which were considered more than just “of some value,” which Protestants reject, such as the larger version of the Book of Daniel which “every Church of Christ” considered Scripture, as did Jerome and Origen.

I was hoping you could answer the question I posted, here: #**314
**

I’ve been looking for my catholic Bible. It was on my desk a couple days ago, but now it is missing.

I would like to find it before I try to answer that question. I guess I never thought about it.

Usually things are rejected because they don’t fit the writing style of the claimed author and/or were not written in the same century as the claimed author lived or they contain obvious errors…

I just don’t know right off the top of my head. I don’t want to simply google and provide a canned answer. People post all sorts of “facts” on the internet that are nothing more then well written lies.

I assumed their was a similar reason as with the deuteros, but don’t recall ever hearing a reason and I know I have never researched it. But I will…It’s a good question.

 

[Ginger2]

I was hoping you could answer the question I posted, here:

Maybe you could tell me what relevant info is in these extra chapters that is missing in the rest of Scripture. You know like some great revelation of Christ that is important, but not mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures.

That might help me find a starting point.

 

[Ginger2]

I googled the Bible stories online. I had totally forgotten about these!!!

I am going to read Bel and the Dragon to my kids tonight.

So back to the question…

I can tell you without any research why Bel and the Dragon are not in Hebrew and Protestant OT. The tone of this story is clearly shows it is not part of the book of Daniel. It sounds nothing like any other part of Daniel.

But it’s a good story anyway! And well worth sharing to our children!

I don’t know about the rest of you but I have enjoyed this thread very more. I think it has been very profitable. Even tho we won’t all end up agreeing on all points.

Thank you for asking about the extra chapters in Daniel.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Maybe you could tell me what relevant info is in these extra chapters that is missing in the rest of Scripture…

Surely you know that we live on “EVERY WORD” that comes from the mouth of God, right? Or do you suggest some of God’s words are not important and therefore can be truncated from the Bible without sin?

The Catholic Daniel is found here. You can compare the relevant passages.

While you’re at it, compare the Book of Esther. Your truncated Protestant version doesn’t even mention God!!! Doesn’t that tell you something? Compare your version of Esther to every other book of the Bible. How many do NOT even bother to mention God???!? Surely the Godless version of the Book of Esther stands out as suspicious to you, doesn’t it?

The Catholic (and Orthodox), and all other Churches of Christ, every one of them, accepted the larger version of Daniel (and Esther) as inspired Scripture. In fact every Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture in other than fragmentary form testify to the larger versions.

According to even Protestant Bible scholars, like Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly:

“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the [ancient Christian] Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament].” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

According to the Protestant commentary within the New Oxford Annotated Bible:

“… the ancient Greek version of the Book of Daniel is considerably longer than the surviving Hebrew text. … All Greek witnesses place the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Jews in Dan ch. 3…The Greek translation made by [2nd cent. Hebrew scholar] Theodotion … includes all the outstanding passages in the Greek Daniel as integral parts of the book … The Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic versions follow Theodotion…. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate followed Theodotion.”

Yet, Protestant author William Webster give his excuse:

“[The Protestant OT] corresponds to the Jewish canon which did not accept the books of the Apocrypha as being canonical. Jerome, who spent many years in Palestine and who had Jewish teachers, rejected the Apocrypha because those books were not recognized as canonical by the Jews…. In addition, Origen…reject[ed] the Apocryphal books as being canonical.”
[William Webster, *The Canon

].
Based upon the writing of Origen and Jerome, we know this claim by Webster to be false. If you don’t simply “gloss over” the details, but actually read Origen and Jerome, you can better test these claims.

Origen explicitly defended the Catholic Daniel and called it “our version.” So too did Jerome. So how can I trust these bogus rationalizations given by Protestant scholars when I know for certain they have no reason to reject the book of Daniel “found in every Church of Christ” (Origen). Aren’t Protestants Christian?

The evidence is overwhelming that the Hebrews of the first century did not have a common version of Scripture texts. For example, the Qumran evidence shows two different versions of the Book of Jeremiah. Which one is inspired? Likewise, evidence of the larger Daniel was found at Qumran [cf. Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, (HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), pg. 482-501].

Clearly, there was not a common understanding of what constituted the Hebrew Scriptures in the first century. The Sadduceess only accepted the first five books of Scripture, Pharisees accepted these books and many more, while the Essenes accepted even more books, but rejected the Book of Esther. So, when Protestants claim to accept that which the Jews accepted, its an unconvincing claim. It begs the question, which Jews? There were many sects and they didn’t agree with regard to the canon of Scripture. The rabbis disputed which books were inspired even into the second century AD, admitted to even by Jewish scholars.

According to the Jewish authors of the The Jewish Encyclopedia (1909), the dispute over which books were considered canonical “still continued in the second century of the common era.” (“Bible Canon,” The Jewish Encyclopedia).

So how does one come to know what books of the Bible are truly inspired books of Scripture?

More importantly, what did the early Christian fathers like Origen and Jerome do? They relied upon the judgment of the Churches, ALL of which accepted the larger version of the Book of Daniel.

Why don’t Protestants?

A minority of sects calling themselves Christian popped up in the 16th century and rejected the Christian Bible for something totally novel, truncating the written Word of God into something no Christian Church ever accepted in the preceding centuries. Why?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…I can tell you without any research why Bel and the Dragon are not in Hebrew and Protestant OT. The tone of this story is clearly shows it is not part of the book of Daniel. It sounds nothing like any other part of Daniel.

That’s not evidence. That’s opinion. Furthermore, its an opinion NEVER held by any Church of Christ before the advent of Protestantism, which is why EVERY ancient Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture has THIS version of Daniel, and why Origen and Jerome accepted THIS version of Daniel.

Basing the canon on subjective opinion of the “tone” of the story is no better than another Protestant opinion about the Epistle of James, “St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” (Martin Luther, LW 35:362).

Or how about another Protestant opinion about the Book of Revelation:

About this book of the Revelation of John…I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…* can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it…Christ is not taught or known in it" (Martin Luther, preface of his 1522 New Testament)*

I actually know a Protestant who STILL rejects the Epistle of James from “his canon” of Sacred Scripture. So, am I to understand that the Bible, according to Protestant teaching, is whatever one’s personal opinion says the Bible consists of? Another person I know claims Paul is the antichrist and rejects all of his letters from the “true” Bible. Is this what Protestant epistemology boils down to?

As for me, I cannot accept a Godless Book of Esther, no matter one’s subjective opinion of the “tone” present in the ancient Christian version, which does indeed speak of God. That is, unless the overwhelming testimony of the Churches of Christ accepted it within their canon of Sacred Scripture. By the providence of God, that’s not the case.

In the final analysis, subjective opinion of the “tone of the story” is not sufficient authority to truncate the written Word of God found in every Church of Christ since the advent of Christ.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

My questions regarding Protestants truncating the Book of Daniel (and Esther) always seem to be a discussion ender for some reason.

 

[ac_claire]

That’s not evidence. That’s opinion. Furthermore, its an opinion NEVER held by any Church of Christ before the advent of Protestantism, which is why EVERY ancient Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture has THIS version of Daniel, and why Origen and Jerome accepted THIS version of Daniel.

In the final analysis, subjective opinion of the “tone of the story” is not sufficient authority to truncate the written Word of God found in every Church of Christ since the advent of Christ.

Indeed. Of all the stock Protestant protests against the deuterocanonical writings, the view that their tone, theme, subjective relevancy, etc. should exclude them is the most preposterous. As if any man’s personal opinion has ANY bearing on the truth of Sacred Scripture. Truth just is, regardless of how anyone feels about it or protests against it. We can accept it or reject it, but we can’t change what it is.

 

[Pwrlftr]

My questions regarding Protestants truncating the Book of Daniel (and Esther) always seem to be a discussion ender for some reason.

It’s probably your humility that leaves them speechless.

 

[NotWorthy]

It’s probably your humility that leaves them speechless.

Sniff, Sniff… Is that sarcasm I smell?!?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Sniff, Sniff… Is that sarcasm I smell?!?

That nose of yours is phenomenal…pheeeenomenal I tell ya

 

[patrick457]

I googled the Bible stories online. I had totally forgotten about these!!!

I am going to read Bel and the Dragon to my kids tonight.

So back to the question…

I can tell you without any research why Bel and the Dragon are not in Hebrew and Protestant OT. The tone of this story is clearly shows it is not part of the book of Daniel. It sounds nothing like any other part of Daniel.

But it’s a good story anyway! And well worth sharing to our children!

I don’t know about the rest of you but I have enjoyed this thread very more. I think it has been very profitable. Even tho we won’t all end up agreeing on all points.

Thank you for asking about the extra chapters in Daniel.

You’re welcome.

Of course, this section may have been another, independent tale about Daniel that was only appended to the whole work later, but nevertheless it is a good example of Jewish satire on the foolishness of idolatry (as shown by Daniel exposing the fraudulent priests of Bel and managing to destroy the living ‘dragon’ that the Babylonians worshipped).

I also suggest reading 1 Maccabees. Aside from showing the origin of Hannukah (1 Mac. 4:56–59), it also gives a fairly good background of the time when Judea became part of the Greek Seleucid Empire (to the point that Josephus apparently made use of it in his Antiquities of the Jews XII, 5 to XIII, 7), and how a small group of the faithful (literally) fought against the supression of Jewish religious law.

 

[guanophore]

What I would like to know is why the Jews reject these books, and how they were determined to be scripture later on?

This is a very broad question. When you mean “Jews” do you mean those that closed the Palestinian canon after Christ? At the time of Christ, there were several factions of Jews that believed in different collections of writings as inspired.

The Palestinian Jews that rejected Christ rejected the Deuterocanonicals in part because they were used by Jesus and the Apostles, and in part because there were references to Him they did not wish to include. But one major factor, later seized upon by the Reformers, is that they did not have Hebrew copies at the time, and thought they were not originally written in Hebrew, which was considered the Language of God.

It was later found that they were, indeed, written in Hebrew.

The Church accepted the collection of books used by Jesus and the Apostles, the Alexandrian Septuagint.

 

[guanophore]

If you want to discuss the NT please start a new thread.

No one does, Ginger2. What we are pointing out is that you reasoning that books are disputed is inadequate. Several books that are now in the NT were as hotly contested as the Deuteros, but you accept them. Why? The same council that closed the NT canon is the one that accepted the Septuagint. If they were wrong on the OT, how can you be sure they got the NT right?

The fact that the books were in dispute becomes irrelevant.

ML is not my authority, but rather a motive for the RC to add extra-biblical books.

It seems that you are claiming your “authority” is whatever you can find that is anti-Catholic.

I have already stated many many reason to believe these Apocrypha were not part of sacred Scriptures in the beginning.

Yes, none of them with any merit whatsoever.

You still have not been able to explain why we should ignore the councils of Hippo and Carthage.

 

[po18guy]

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.

For scripture to be canonized, it must have been in use since the founding of the Church. Thus, the Deuterocanon was in use since day 1.

Many things the Catholic Church has done have been only in defense against heresy, which Lutheranism certainly was. Ever wonder why the sola scripturists settle for less scriptura than Catholics? Makes no sense.