Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[Pwrlftr]

Ginger :slapfight: everyone else

 

[po18guy]

You are right. That is really scary.

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.

The fact that the very bible itself, in either 66 or 73 books, is a 100% Catholic document, approved by a pope, must also be upsetting. It shouldn’t be. Without the authority of the Church to canonize, there would be no bible.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The fact that the very bible itself, in either 66 or 73 books, is a 100% Catholic document, approved by a pope, must also be upsetting. It shouldn’t be. Without the authority of the Church to canonize, there would be no bible.

AMEN

 

[po18guy]

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.

Saint Jerome was one man, although a very great one, with an opinion. He realized that Christianity was greater than himself and his desires. His saving grace was that he was obedient and submitted to the authority of the Church, rather than breaking away and re-writing a canon that suited his personal preferences. Thus, rather than dividing the Christian world, he helped hold it together.

 

[guanophore]

Luther was a sarcastic snot. His sarcasm did him no service.

We often see the things in others that are actually in ourselves, but we are unwilling to face.

However, I don’t believe your OP was an attempt to be sarcastic. I think you really did believe that drivel!

 

[NotWorthy]

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 have no idea what you are getting at.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Jerome included the “History of Susanna” Check Daniel 13. It’s in my Bible.

If you have Susanna in your Bible then you sided with Rufinus and not Jerome, who called it uninspired. And perhaps you should apologize to everyone for advancing Jerome as your infallible authority. And I’d do a little more research and try to find out why your Bible has that uninspired text in it, according to early Jerome!!

 

[MarcoPolo]

(including Rufius)

This was addressed. But another question.

Have you anywhere in this thread recanted your statement that Catholics added these books at Trent, or do you still believe this to be the case???

 

[irishpatrick]

**Ginger2,

Following upon MarcoPolo’s post: After all this discussion, do you now agree that the Catholic Church did not add books to the Canon?**

(that is, after all, the point of this thread)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

But you do. The only reason you accept a truncated Bible is because of a man-made Protestant tradition. A tradition which has no historical Christian precedent in any Church of Christ since the advent of Christ.

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.

That’s irrelevant. Even the protocanonical portions of Daniel show that other redactors were involved, as is the case with many books of Sacred Scripture. For instance, there are portions of Daniel written in a late Aramaic (Dan. 2.4 to 7.28). Do you reject these portions too? There’s evidence that the book of Genesis was written by many redactors too, do you truncate it into pieces?

Is that it then? The Protestant Bible is whatever one’s personal opinion says it is? One Protestant rejects portions of Daniel, another man accepts a Godless Esther, and yet other Protestants reject the Book of Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, or James? Each Protetant can simply pick and choose which portions of the Bible we call “their canon?”

Seems to be a Protestant epistemology built upon sand to me.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This was addressed. But another question.

Have you anywhere in this thread recanted your statement that Catholics added these books at Trent, or do you still believe this to be the case???

Since the Council of Florence, well before the advent of Protestantism, also listed the same books, I don’t see how her initial claim is tenable. There were approximately 14 versions of the Bible in German before Luther’s edition, each of which had all the Catholic books in it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…the Book of Daniel claims to have been written by Daniel in many places.

Bel and the Dragon is written in 3rd person.

According to Daniel ch. 1 :

… 3 Then the king commanded his palace master Ashpenaz to bring some of the Israelites of the royal family and of the nobilit… 6 Among them were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, from the tribe of Judah.

Hmmmm…Daniel is spoken of in the 3rd person…should you truncate this portion from your Protestant “canon” of Scripture too?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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.**

Can you explain why? For instance, what version of the Septuagint are you citing?

There were many versions extant, and many more versions referenced by early fathers which are not now extant. Some people seem to think the Septuagint was some kind of “standard” manuscript the Church used, but it wasn’t. Which is why the Greek Orthodox do not have the same Bible as the Russian Orthodox…because their regional “versions” of the Septuagint don’t agree.

Furthermore, why do you think that something in one recension of a Septuagint would settle anything, since all the Churches of Christ accepted the Theodotian recension of Daniel? Origen, Patriarch of the Church of Alexandria, included the the Septuagint and the Theodotian recensions in his Hexapla, yet he cited the Theodotian version authoritatively in his writings.

According to Protestant commentary in the New Annotated Oxford Bible, “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*.””

Consequently, the Churches of Christ all accepted these passages of Daniel as integral parts of the book.

By what authority do Protestants truncate the Bible they received after 1500+ years of Christianity? Surely more than personal opinion can be cited, no? Isn’t there even one church, ever before Protestantism which held to a 66-book Bible with a Godless Esther and a truncated Daniel?

Surely Origen was quite familiar with whatever titles he had in his recension of the Septuagint, and he was far more knowledgeable than you or I as to how this may or may not “settle” the matter. Yet, he defended the larger recension of Daniel as “our version” because this was the version “found in every Church of Christ.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

Regarding the synodal canons of the 4th century, this is what Protestant scholars have stated…

According to the Protestant source, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232):
"A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the ‘Gelasian Decree’ because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent."According to Protestant scholar Philip Schaff, “The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament… The New Testament canon is the same as ours. This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.” (Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Ch 9) If the canon was “fixed” in the 4th century and “remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century” then how is it that Protestants claim that the Catholic Church “added” these books in response to the Protestant reformation?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

One more thing…

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

In light of this information I don’t see how the Vulgate could be the RC’s ex-cathedral version of Scriptures. …

The Catholic Church has never claimed any edition of the Vulgate to be “critically” accurate text, that is, exact translation of the original autographs. The expression “ex-catehdral version of Scripture” is meaningless in Catholic theology.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Can anyone provide a list of the books the Jews believed to be canonical during the time of Jesus and the apostles? Something from a person of that time period?

There was no consensus among the various sects of 1st cent. Judaism as to which books were Holy Scripture. In fact, even today Ethiopian Jews hold to a larger canon of Scripture.

Moreoever, according to even Jewish scholars, the larger recension of the Book of Daniel was regarded by Jews “in Alexandria as belonging in the class of sacred writings” (Jewish Encyclopedia, Bel and the Dragon). As stated already, well after the 1909 Jewish Encyclopedia was written, the discovery at the Qumran Caves indicate that the Hebrew sect there (believe to be Essenes) kept many versions of the same sacred books, such as different versions of the Book of Jeremiah, including also evidence of the larger recension of the Book of Daniel. Tobit and Sirach were also among the Qumran texts, all dating prior to the first century or earlier.

According to the 2nd century Mishnah, the Jewish rabbis continued to dispute the canon of Scripture…

… And it came to pass when the Ark set forward renders the hands unclean. All the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean. The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean. R. Judah says: The Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, but about Ecclesiastes there is dissension. R. Jose says: Ecclesiastes does not render the hands unclean, and about Songs of Song there is dissension. (Mishnah, Sixth Division, Yadayim 3.5)

In the final analysis, it isn’t important to prove that this Jewish sect held to a larger canon, or that Jewish sect held to a smaller canon. They had no standard, that much is clear.

What Christians should be doing is seeking what the Churches of Christ held to be Sacred Scripture. When Protestants argue for their truncated Bible, they cite individual opinion. When Catholics discuss the canon of Scripture, they cite CANONS. That is, they cite synodal decrees, which is where CANONS come from, not individual opinon.

The 4th cent. canons of the synods of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and the ecumenical councils of Florence, Trent, all agree, admitted to even by Protestant scholars.

 

[po18guy]

Thank you for the great posts, Dave! We’re learning a lot here.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thank you for the great posts, Dave! We’re learning a lot here.

Your welcome. I have to share with you that when I was a teenager, dating a Protestant, with all my other friends being Protestant, this was the very first claim I heard from them: Catholics added books to the Bible. It’s as if it was a mantra taught to them at Sunday school.

At the time, I didn’t have a clue about how the Bible came to be. However, I was pretty sure Catholicism was around waaaaayyy before Protestantism, so the claim itself seemed rather foolish on the surface.

But, I dug into the details because I wanted to “test everything, hold fast to the good” (1 Thess 5:21). So I did some research, and instead of reading what other people said about Jerome and Origen and the early canons of Sacred Scripture, I read them for myself.

Jerome certainly relayed opinions unfavorable to the deuterocanonicals, but it appears he may have been relaying what the Hebrews might raise as objections. In the final analysis, after the synodal decree of Damasus, Jerome held all of the books of the Catholic canon to be Sacred Scripture, and Jerome even cited the deuterocanonicals in the defense of doctrines!

Jerome even refutes Rufinius’ charge that he rejected the larger recension of Daniel…

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

I often read from Protestants that Origen’s list of Hebrew Scripture matched the Protestant list. However, this is deceptive, because when **Origen lists the Hebrew Scriptures, he does so ****to contrast it with what he called “our version.” **Origen explicitly distinguishes between the “Jewish Scriptures” and “ours,” making it clear that he believes the Jews have “variant readings” when compared to “ours.” [cf. Origen, To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in Philip Schaff’s ANF, IV:387)].

Origen, in defending against Africanus’ charge that some portions of Origen’s version of Scripture are forgeries, stated: “***I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna ***…” (ibid), affirming that is the version “found in every Church of Christ” (ibid).

So Protestant authors often cite Origen’s list without the context that Origen himself accepted the larger Catholic canon of Scripture as “our version” in contrast to “theirs.”

After studying the early fathers said about the canon of Scripture, I was very disappointed in the weak polemics put forth by the so-called “doctors” of Protestantism. These guys are PhD’s, did they lack integrity or simply lack rigor in their scholarship?

Interestingly enough, another Protestant scholar, Charles Elliott wrote…

…Protestants…do not reject the evidence of written testimony. They readily avail themselves of it as furnishing rational evidence of the genuineness of the books of Scripture…***We know it to be impossible that forgeries should gain universal credit, because we know it to be impossible now, human nature and the laws of moral evidence being the same in all ages. We receive the Holy Scriptures as undoubtedly genuine…because they were identified with the literature of the period before the Church of Rome was distinguished above other churches. And it was impossible that she could, after the fourth century, add to the evidence…which had been ***established above all dispute in the second and third centuries. [Charles Elliott, *Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Book I, p. 110]

Astonishingly enough, I agree. However, I don’t see how it helps the Protestant argument.

For instance, the larger recension of the Book of Daniel was clearly accepted by Origen, Jerome, and found in all the Churches of Christ since the advent of Christ. It is included in EVERY Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture in other than fragmentary form. Yet, Protestantism chose to truncate the Bible they had received from all the Christian Churches which came well before them.

And, unlike Ginger2 or Martin Luther, I cannot agree that individual opinion regarding the “tone” of this passage or that chapter, or that letter is sufficient to define the canon of Scritpure, especially if that opinion seeks to overrule 1500 years of canonical decrees on what constitutes Sacred Scripture.

 

[Ginger2]

The only reason you accept a truncated Bible is because of a man-made Protestant tradition.

A

I was raised Catholic and continued to use my Catholic Bible long after I left and began attending Protestant churches. ** I didn’t know RC Bibles were different from Protestant Bibles until 16 years later.**

After discovering the Catholic Bible had more books, I began to investigate. I had always believed the false Catholic claim, until a few days ago, that Luther had removed these books from the Catholic Bible. I believed, from Catholic sources, Jerome placed the in the collection of books we call the Bible, but sense Jerome had set them apart stating they were not inspired, I mistakenly believed ML removed them.

My summation today is this:

*These books have always been read in the church (I have never disagreed on that point)
*These books were never universally considered inspired until Trent (I always believed that since my “extra books” discovery) Therefore, it is inaccurate to say the RC added them, but rather they declared them inspired for the first time in trhe 16th century.
*Martin Luther did not removed any books from the church Rather he affirmed the pope’s decision that the deuteros were not inspired but had a lesser value within the Christian community. Which is demonstrating by the pope’s approval of Jerome stating so in the Vulgate.

 

[Ginger2]

I agree.
…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 it, as the Book of Daniel claims to have been written by Daniel in many places.
itsjustdave1988;4614728:

According to Daniel ch. 1 :

Dan 7:15 I Daniel was grieved…
Dan 8:15 And it came to pass, when I, [even] I Daniel,…
Dan 8:27 And I Daniel fainted,…
Dan 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel …
Dan 10:2 In those days I Daniel …
Dan 10:11 And he said unto me, O Daniel, …
Dan 10:12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: …
Dan 12:5 Then I Daniel looked, …

I guess that is more then just chapter 1.