Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[NotWorthy]

There’s something that I heard the other day while listening to a talk on my MP3 player.

I’ve often wondered at the statistics of the Jewish conversion to Christianity and Father Joseph Shetler at St. Joseph’s Cathedral (I don’t know where this is) said that by the end of the first century, fully 2/3 of all Jews had converted to Christianity. Now, I don’t know how the death of 1 million Jews in Jerusalem (70AD) affected these numbers, but in any event, Judaism world wide was but a shadow of what it had been 100 years earlier, if these numbers are even close to accurate.

Now, I don’t have anything to back up these numbers (maybe I’ll e-mail Fr. Shetler after googling his web-site), but you could imagine how our brother Jews felt about Christians at this time and anything that sounded “Christ-like”.

Does anyone have any further information to verify or correct his? Of course, you may also ask, how in the world is this matter relevant to the thread!

 

[Bill_Pick]

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.

You are right in naming the seven books that are called “deuterocanonical” (Greek, meaning "second canon). But, you are misinformed in thinking that Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther. The fact is that these seven books, which are not in the Hebrew Canon, WERE ADDED IN THE GREEK TRANSLATION, the Septuagint, and then taken over into the Latin Versions. The Septuagint (means “seventy”) is the name of the main ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible undertaken by the Jewish community in Greek-slpeaking Egypt beginning about 250 B.C. This version included a larger number of books than was eventually accepted by the Jews for their collection of the Scriptures. The Septuagint became very popular among Christians, and was their premier edition of the Bible

 

[NotWorthy]

You are right in naming the seven books that are called “deuterocanonical” (Greek, meaning "second canon). But, you are misinformed in thinking that Catholics added these books as a counter measure against the split caused by Martin Luther. The fact is that these seven books, which are not in the Hebrew Canon, WERE ADDED IN THE GREEK TRANSLATION, the Septuagint, and then taken over into the Latin Versions. The Septuagint (means “seventy”) is the name of the main ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible undertaken by the Jewish community in Greek-slpeaking Egypt beginning about 250 B.C. This version included a larger number of books than was eventually accepted by the Jews for their collection of the Scriptures. The Septuagint became very popular among Christians, and was their premier edition of the Bible

Thanks Bill! That clears up a lot of the confusion!

What’s that smell again? It’s vaguely familiar…

 

[Ginger2]

Interesting. Does this mean you reject most of Isaiah? How about John, chapter 21?

What does not trusting Protestant scholars have to do Isaiah and John.

 

[NotWorthy]

What does not trusting Protestant scholars have to do Isaiah and John.

What?!?
I was simply referring to your post:

   		 			 				 					Originally Posted by **Ginger2** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4612221#post4612221) 				
  		*I wouldn't ask you to trust.  I don't turn to them. Why would I expect you to?

But it is obvious that the same person who wrote the rest of Daniel did not write Bel and the Dragon the styles are completely different*.

The same person did not write all of Isaiah, according to most experts. Nor did the same person write the last chapter of John 21. It seems these addendum’s were written by disciples of theirs.

Are they still inspired?

 

[patrick457]

What does not trusting Protestant scholars have to do Isaiah and John.

I’m very sorry if I could not understand your statement, but here’s my take.

One of the most critical debates about book of Isaiah is whether the book was written by one author or more (usually two or three, respectively dubbed Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah), with some seeing a division between chapter 39 – where the original author is said to have ended the work – and subsequent chapters, said to have been penned by other people, who were perhaps Isaiah’s disciples adding more prophecies to the collection.

John chapter 21 in the original Greek, meanwhile, is stylistically and syntactically different from the rest of the book; the style is more closer to Luke’s Gospel (though there are some Johannine features present as well). Thus, it was also suggested that someone else penned this chapter, perhaps as an ‘appendix’ or ‘postscript’ of sorts after John completed his work (John 20:30-31 is usually thought of as the original ending for the Gospel). However, because John 21 is present in all manuscripts of John that we have today, it is usually hypothesized that this was written before the book was published and went into circulation.

 

[Ginger2]

What?!?
I was simply referring to your post:

You have taken my post out of content. Here is what was said:

Quoteosted by itsjustdave
…So how can I trust these bogus rationalizations given by Protestant scholars …

Response Posted by Ginger
I wouldn’t ask you to trust. I don’t turn to them. Why would I expect you to?

 

[Ginger2]

I’m very sorry if I could not understand your statement, but here’s my take.

I was talking to itsjustdave and Notworthy misunderstood my comment. I don’t think that post was never directed toward you.

As I previously stated, ** the title to the Septuagint text reads: “From the prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus [Joshua], of the tribe of Levi.”

I think that settles the matter.**

 

[NotWorthy]

You have taken my post out of content. Here is what was said:

Quoteosted by itsjustdave
…So how can I trust these bogus rationalizations given by Protestant scholars …

Response Posted by Ginger
I wouldn’t ask you to trust. I don’t turn to them. Why would I expect you to?

I was referring to you rejecting Bel and the Dragon because it was obviously of a different author.

I wasn’t referring to your dis-association with Protestant scholars.

 

[Ginger2]

I was referring to you rejecting Bel and the Dragon because it was obviously of a different author.

I wasn’t referring to your dis-association with Protestant scholars.

OK. Then I’ll repeat (hopefully for the last time) the title to the Septuagint text reads: “From the prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus [Joshua], of the tribe of Levi.”

I also found out that Bel and the Dragon were originally two separate stories. I might try to find the originals later today if I have time.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Earlier, we were told in this thread that Rufinus and Jerome were allies against the Deuterocanon.

As promised. Here is an excerpt from Rufinus’ “Apology Against Jerome” that the rejection of the disputed portions of Daniel (called the “Susanna” portions) was tantamount to cutting them out of sacred Scriputure:*In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. (Rufinus, Apology Against Jerome, 2.33)*The reason some say Rufinus was in lockstep with Jerome’s earlier rejection of the deuterocanon is because he said of Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees that these books:
*…[the Fathers] would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named “Apocrypha.” (Rufinus, Commentary on the Symbol of the Apostles, 36-38)*Rufinus admits these books were read in the churches. And we can certainly confirm that prior to Rufinus there were a number of Fathers who appealed to these books to confirm doctrine. On that point, he is demonstrably incorrect. But it is of importance that he said these books were read in the Churches, which was one of the criteria in recognizing the canonicity of a book.

Notice also that Rufinus makes a distinction between the Deuterocanon and “other writings” that were “Apocrypha.” These books were not considered Apocrypha.

Additionally, Rufinus speaks of Baruch as the words of the prophet Jeremiah (1). He quotes Sirach, calling it "sacred Scripture (2). He says Wisdom has the words of a prophet (3).

1. Commentary on the Twelve Patriarchs, Blessing of Joesph, 5 (quoting Bar 3:36-38)
2. Commentary on the Twelve Patriarchs, Blessing of Gad, 3 (quoting Sir 34:9)…& Commentary on the Twelve Patriarchs, Blessing of Joseph, 3 (quoting Sir 11:30)
3. Commentary on the Twelve Patriarchs, Blessing of Joseph, 46 (quoting Wis 3:7)

So why would Rufinus say Fathers would not appeal to books he himself quoted as Scripture for the confirmation of doctrine? The answer is because in debating with Jews who did not accept these books, appealing to them would be useless. It is the same way many Catholics today argue only from Scripture to a Protestant who would scoff at any argument from Tradition. Buy by his own words while not debating with Jews, he considers the Deuterocanonical books divinely inspired Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

This is interesting as these two councils don’t say the same thing. Do you have links to the complete statements?

They do say the same thing. They both affirm that nothing should be used in the Divine Liturgy besides the canonical Scriptures. Beneficial spiritual readings are not to be contained in the Mass. Then they list the Deuterocanonical books as part of the canon. These were not “added” at Trent, but reaffirmed, because heresies arose attempting to exclude them from the approved canon, and because of Luther’s reclassification of them as uninspired.

 

[guanophore]

Not sure what you mean by this.

I’m afraid I have already studied it.

You are right. That is really scary.

I am a writer, and altho I am frequently careless when not working, I am very aware of how the slightest variance can totally change the meaning of a sentence or an entire piece.

I would like to see the original statements to study them and discover exactly what they were expressing.

Even though it appears that you are very narrow minded because you have to screen out anything that seems Catholic, at least if you are willign to read, study, and discover, the possiblity exists that you can come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[guanophore]

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

You are absolutely correct Ginger2. If the Church did not get the OT right, there is absolutely no assurance that the NT canon is correct either. It is a puzzle how you can accept one and not the other.

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.

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.

You are right there was opposition, but that is irrelevant. The way the HS works through the Church to determine the Truth into which Jesus promised we would be led is through the Magesterium. We see plenty of dissention at the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts, but the decision of the council was final.

We see even more dissention about the nature of Christ during the Arian heresy, where 80% of the bishops in Christendom fell into error. The truth is not determined by the dissention, but sharpened from it. The Church, through the Magesterium, made the decision, as it has from the beginning, and continues to do so today.

 

[Ginger2]

Earlier, we were told in this thread that Rufinus and Jerome were allies against the Deuterocanon.

It is the Catholic Encyclopedia that says Rufius agreed with Jerome that not all the Deuteros were inspired. Your quote agrees!

The reason some say Rufinus was in lockstep with Jerome’s earlier rejection of the deuterocanon is because he said of Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees that these books:
…[the Fathers] would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.

That is exactly what Jerome claimed!!! :clapping:

You also quoted Rufinus: “For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed/B]. (Rufinus, Apology Against Jerome, 2.33)”

Sounds like Rufius didn’t know what he was taking about. Jerome included the "History of Susanna" Check Daniel 13. It’s in my Bible.

Furthermore, I thought Catholics claim Jerome submitted to the Pope and included everything as directed.

So if Rufus had any complaint, I guess he should have taken it up with the pope, not Jerome.

 

[Pwrlftr]

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.

Ginger,

(1.) This has probably been covered, but when do you believe the books were added?

(2.) What do you mean by “added”? I can think of several different things a non-Catholic could mean by “added” but don’t remember what or if you really explained your position. You kind of came under fire :slapfight: immediately and don’t remember if you had a chance to really state your case.

(3.) Could you post an outline of what you believe your main points are?

 

[guanophore]

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.

In fact, this is EXACTLY why infallible pronouncements must be made. They settle the dissention with finality. This is why such a statement was made at Trent. Not because anything had changed. This was the same canon received by the Church from the Apostles from the beginning. The proclamation is done to settle the controversy.

I would think you would understand this principle,because I read a very good arguement you made about the scriptures being inspired from the moment they were written, not when they were collected.

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.

At least you understand that you are persisting in dissent against the infallible teaching of the Church.

In addition to this outright rebellion, you are laboring under a misperception:

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.

Not only were these books not “added” but they were declared because the church has the duty to oppose error, and lowering the status of these books to “spiritually beneficial” contradicted the consistent teaching of the Church.

 People post all sorts of "facts" on the internet that are nothing more then well written lies.

It is amazing that you can post something like this, and yet not relate it to your OP. Maybe the OP is just not that good of a piece of writing?

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think one of the best testimonies of Jesus to the Deuteros is His presence at the Temple in Jerusalem during the feast of lights. Had this not been of God, I do not believe He would have participated.

 

[guanophore]

This is such an empty defence.

Why did they keep other books Jesus referenced? Jesus frequently referenced the Hebrew Scriptures, yet all those books were kept. But never quoted Bel.

Bel and the Dragon does not mention Jesus or even any prophecy that could be linked to Jesus. If the Jews were doing away with Scriptures that pointed to Jesus, Why toss out Bel?

This was not the only reason they rejected them. They could not find them written in Hebrew, so thought they might not be "from God’ as the other Scriptures were. Jerome did not have them in Hebrew either, nor did Luther. The Hebrew copies were not found until recently.

The Jews were invested in separating themselves from the Christians, and since the Christians adopted the Septuagint, it was in their best interest to reject that version of the OT.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,

(1.) This has probably been covered, but when do you believe the books were added?

These books were always included in “libraries” or collections. But not always considered inspired of God. As Jerome and as we have recently seen, many others church fathers (including Rufius) stated did not hold the same authority as Inspired writings.

(2.) What do you mean by “added”?

That was definitely poor wording on my part. I corrected myself awhile back stating they were not “added”, but officially declare Scripture at Trent (As other Catholics have cited, they were not declare dogmatically before Trent)

So to clarify: In one sense they were added to official canon at Trent. But not added in the sense of never being used by the church

(3.) Could you post an outline of what you believe your main points are?

Ok.