Old Testament - seven extra books in Catholic Bibles

[NotWorthy]

Hi, Ginger

I guess my patience level is low, so I’m going to cut to the chase

It appears that you are not Catholic, and are posting to a Catholic forum. Is this correct?

It also appears that not only are you not Catholic, but you are … for lack of a better term, ‘hostile’ toward the Catholic church and Catholic teaching. Is this correct?

If this is the case, I am curious: why are you posting here? Are you trying to ‘wise up’ the Catholics? Or what?

Happy New Year!

Where are you getting this from? Ginger has questions. They’ve been answered, but that only brought up more questions. Those of us who have been here through the whole debate have learned alot.

Let’s keep this on a Christian level, please!

 

[RobertLGarrett]

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.

Apryl:

It appears that you are not Catholic, and are posting to a Catholic forum. Is this correct?

It also appears that not only are you not Catholic, but you are … for lack of a better term, ‘hostile’ toward the Catholic church and Catholic teaching. Is this correct?

If this is the case, I am curious: why are you posting here? Are you trying to ‘wise up’ the Catholics? Or what?

Hi irishpatrick and Apryl,

I had the same reaction to Ginger2 initially, but look at it from another angle. Thanks to the fantastic discussions that spring out of her heretical challenges, many Catholics, self included, are able to increase their knowledge and strengthen their understanding of Church teaching.

If her goal is to convert Catholics (I’m not sure it is), she is actually having the reverse effect. In the meantime, maybe some of the truth of the Church will get through to her.

Pax Christi,
Robert

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… I had always believed the false Catholic claim, until a few days ago, that Luther had removed these books from the Catholic Bible…

He didn’t remove them, but he put them in an appendix and treated them (as well as the Book of Revelation, Jude, James, & Hebrews) as though he treated all non-inspired texts. In other words, he said they were not part of “his canon” of Scripture. In essence, he did not consider them Scripture.

This is not a “Catholic claim” but what Lutherans themselves teach regarding Luther’s rejection of these texts.

I believed, from Catholic sources, Jerome placed the in the collection of books we call the Bible…

That’s odd, because Jerome did not “add them” but instead merely took that which was accepted by the Churches of Christ, translated them, studied them, commenting on them, etc., in accord with the commission he was given by Pope Damasus. There was Scripture before Jerome’s translations, as Origen and many other early fathers write about.

It was Pope Damasus (AD 328) who canonized these texts at a synod of Rome. Prior to the 4th century canonization of Scripture, there were various schools of thought regarding what books were considered inspired Scripture.

…sense Jerome had set them apart stating they were not inspired…

You’ll have to cite the reference from Jerome. My understanding is that he described them as not canonized by the Church (and I think at that point, they weren’t yet), but afterwords he called them “Scripture.” For example, Jerome explicitly describes Sirach as Scripture and uses Sirach for doctrinal defense. He wrote: "Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ SIRACH 13:2] (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207). He elsewhere uses the familiar words, “It is written” when citing Sircah in defense of doctrine (cf. Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390). Doesn’t this indicate that whatever Jerome might have said earlier about Sirach, he understood at least by AD 404 that Sirach was indeed Scripture? He also cites passages from Wisdom and the larger version of Daniel similarly, quoting from them in the defense of doctrine (cf. Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119). He does the same in citing from Baruch (cf. Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119, also Jerome, *To Eustochium, *Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45). He explicitly refers to Wisdom as “Holy Scritpure” in another text (cf. Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8). How can he claim it to be Holy Scripture if it was not “inspired?” Jerome explicitly cites the deuterocanonicals as Scripture in the defense of doctrines, at times complaining about his opponent denying the authority of the book!

My summation today is this:

*These books have always been read in the church (I have never disagreed on that point)

I agree.

*These books were never universally considered inspired until Trent (I always believed that since my “extra books” discovery)

I disagree. The term “universally” means that they were not merely “regionally” considered inspired. It doesn’t mean that every person believed them to be inspired. Even after Trent, no book is “universally considered inspired.”

The Ecumenical Council of Florence shows that these texts were universally considered inspired in the proper sense.

continued…

 

[Pwrlftr]

Where are you getting this from? Ginger has questions. They’ve been answered, but that only brought up more questions. Those of us who have been here through the whole debate have learned alot.

Let’s keep this on a Christian level, please!

I agree w/ you NotWorthy.

This has been a great thread so far.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Hi, Ginger

I guess my patience level is low, so I’m going to cut to the chase !

Unless I misread the number of posts…you only have a total of two posts in this thread.

How can you say your patience level is low?

 

[Alindawyl]

Where are you getting this from? Ginger has questions. They’ve been answered, but that only brought up more questions. Those of us who have been here through the whole debate have learned alot.

Let’s keep this on a Christian level, please!

I agree as well. Although I have nothing new to add myself, I continue to enjoy reading this thread and the information being provided by the many knowledgeable posters defending the canon.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Therefore, it is inaccurate to say the RC added them, but rather they declared them inspired for the first time in trhe 16th century.

I disagree. But this is where some knowledge of Catholic dogmatic theology comes into play…

The synodal canons of the 4th century declared them inspired, but these synods were authoritative (ie. binding) only in the Latin or western Church (i.e. Rome, Hippo, Carthage). The Eastern Church had no similar authoritative synodal decree which was binding throughout the Eastern patriarchates.

At Florence (15th century), however, the canonicity and inspiration of Scripture was declared universally. Thus, at Florence what was only authoritative in the West, became canonically binding throughout the universal Church. Yet, although this was canonically binding and therefore authoritative, it **was not yet considered an irrevocable decree.

Canon law can and does change. In fact, canon law could be disagreed with in the writings of faithful Catholics. But, until canon law is changed, it remains binding and authoritative upon all Catholics. This is why you have guys like Cardinal Cajetan, who between Florence and Trent, could disagree with the canonical decree with regard to the inspired nature of some of these OT and NT texts, and did so without risk of heresy. He certainly invited much opposition, but his opposition could not charge him with heresy, as this canoncial and binding decree was not yet de fide definita.

At Trent, that which was already universally binding and authoritative with regard to the canon and inspiration of Scripture was declared irrevocably so. So, if Cardinal Cajetan or those like him were to continue, after Trent, to express obstinate doubt or denial of the inspired nature of the canon of Scripture, they would then commit the crime of heresy.

*Martin Luther did not removed any books from the church

This is misleading, because he did “appendicize” the deuteros as well as other NT texts, which effectively removed them from “his canon” of Scripture.

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.

Please show me where Jerome stated this.

Moreover, you should also understand that we don’t have the original Latin Vulgate of Jerome which Damasus approved. Instead we have later manuscripts which we are believed to be based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and collected by others. ***I know of no decree where Jerome’s commentary was decreed normative for the Church. ***Regardless, see my note about Cajetan above. Prior to Trent, like Cajetan, Luther could call them non-inspired all day long without committing the crime of heresy, but he couldn’t change the “CANON” or the universally binding nature of the declaration of Florence. He was not, however, agreeing with any pope in calling them non-inspired.

Nonetheless, Jerome himself didn’t call these texts non-inspired, unless I’m overlooking some passage which you can cite for me. On the contrary, he explicitly called them “Holy Scripture” and frequently used them in the defense of doctrine.

 

[irishpatrick]

Hi irishpatrick and Apryl,

I had the same reaction to Ginger2 initially, but look at it from another angle. Thanks to the fantastic discussions that spring out of her heretical challenges, many Catholics, self included, are able to increase their knowledge and strengthen their understanding of Church teaching.

If her goal is to convert Catholics (I’m not sure it is), she is actually having the reverse effect. In the meantime, maybe some of the truth of the Church will get through to her.

Pax Christi,
Robert

I agree. I just think it is really rude to start a thread, and then ignore questions about the thread…amazingly rude.

 

[irishpatrick]

It’s already been answered at least twice.

Why keep asking?
I do not “recant”, but I have clarified.

First, Catholics here have already acknowledged Hippo and Carthage were not infallible noror dogmatic councils

Second, Catholics have acknowledged the Pope didn’t declare their canons dogma.

Third, the pope sanctioned Jerome’s disclaimer stating these books were good to be read in church for edification, etc., but not for matters of doctrine nor authority.

1. The canon set by Hippo and Carthage set the canon is tdifferent from the one set at Trent. Why wasn’t it exactly the way Hippo and Carthage listed it?
2. The Vulgate differs from both Hippo and Trent as shown by Pwrlftr.
3. Luther included the deuteros in his Bible under the same conditions as Jerome.

I can arugue each on of those points, but you are really not wanting that. You still have not addressed your own thread challenge. You started this by stating that Catholics added books to the Canon, that has been proved wrong beyond any question, yet you refuse to admit that. That tells me, and most of us here, that you must hold an anti-Catholic agenda, which is NOT what you claimed to have in your original post.

I feel this thread should be closed.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I
I feel this thread should be closed.

Good thing you aren’t a moderator.

 

[irishpatrick]

Good thing you aren’t a moderator.

True. I would close the thread. I feel threads should have to stay somewhere near their original intent and this thread has gone way off target, imo. It has been proved beyond any question that the Church did not add books to the Canon, that was what the OP challenged, the thread should be closed.

BTW, there have been many side discussions on this thread that would make for interesting threads of their own, yet those discussions really have little to do with the fact that the Church never added books to the Canon.

Either way I am done with this topic.

Take care.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

To dispel the notion that this is simply a “Catholic claim”, regarding Luther’s personal rejection of the OT and NT books…

According to non-Catholic Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan (former Lutheran convert to Eastern Orthodoxy):

In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four [Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation]—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23 . . . a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha. Luther’s Works 35, 393, footnote 43 of the Luther writings in English, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan).

Thus, he treated some NT books as he did the OT apocrypha, calling the NT books “books of secondary rank.” (LW, 35: 231-232), meaning not inspired or of apostolic origin. How can a book be included in the NT if it were not inspired or written by an apostle?

Luther affirmed:

We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ… I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. [LW 54:424]

He had equal disdain for all the other OT and NT deuteros. Thus, even though still included in his printed Bibles, he effectively truncated these texts from what he called the “true and chief books” of the Bible. He said of the Letter of James (1522 preface): “I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books.” (LW, 35:395-398).

Similarly, with regard to Maccabees Luther remarks: “I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees…for they have too many heathen unnaturalities.” (Table-Talk, #XXIV, p. 13).

Wittenberg Protestant scholar Andreas Rudolf Bodenstein von Carlstadt, a supporter of Luther but who latter dissented with him, said in rebuttal to Luther’s rejection of at least the NT books of Scripture:

“One must appeal either to known apostolic authorship or to universal historical acceptance as to the test of a book’s canonicity, not to internal doctrinal considerations.” De Canonicis Scripturis libellus, Wittenberg, 1520, p. 50].

Yet, according to author Francis Piper (1950) , a Lutheran theologian, who wrote of Luther’s view of the NT deuteros (called “antilegomena”):

“he will not class them with the 'right certain chief books of the New Testament.’” …

…the fathers of the Missouri Synod recognized the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena. They did, however, leave it to the individual to form his own views regarding any of the antilegomena, for they were divided in their opinion regarding, e.g., the Apocalypse. In the second volume of Lehre und Wehre (1856, p. 204 ff.) the question regarding the homologoumena and the antilegomena is thoroughly ventilated in the article entitled: “Is He Who does Not Receive or Regard as Canonical All Books Contained in the Collection of the New Testament to be Declared a Heretic or Dangerous False Teacher?” Walther writes:“What induces us to discuss this question is the fact that Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical. "
(Pieper, Francis, “The Witness of History for Scripture” (Homologoumena and Antilegomena),” Christian Dogmatics, Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38,)

So, where did Catholics get the idea the Luther didn’t include certain OT and NT books in “his canon” of Scripture? From Luther of course. As well as many Lutheran scholars who also rejected some of these books, to include NT books as no longer being “canonical.” This is the Catholic claim because it was first a Lutheran claim.

 

[NotWorthy]

continued…
I disagree. But this is where some knowledge of Catholic dogmatic theology comes into play…

The synodal canons of the 4th century declared them inspired, but these synods were authoritative (ie. binding) only in the Latin or western Church (i.e. Rome, Hippo, Carthage). The Eastern Church had no similar authoritative synodal decree which was binding throughout the Eastern patriarchates.

Nonetheless, Jerome himself didn’t call these texts non-inspired, unless I’m overlooking some passage which you can cite for me. On the contrary, he explicitly called them “Holy Scripture” and frequently used them in the defense of doctrine.

Ahhhhhhh…

I feel like I just finished a 2000 piece puzzle and discovered that I never lost a single piece!!! Thanks Dave for your most enlightening posts in helping to clear up (at least in my mind) numerous issues!

God Bless you, Brother!

 

[NotWorthy]

I can arugue each on of those points, but you are really not wanting that. You still have not addressed your own thread challenge. You started this by stating that Catholics added books to the Canon, that has been proved wrong beyond any question, yet you refuse to admit that. That tells me, and most of us here, that you must hold an anti-Catholic agenda, which is NOT what you claimed to have in your original post.

I feel this thread should be closed.

You can simply walk away (but I assume you are stuck in my “train wreck analogy” that I posted 18 years ago on this thread).

If this thread had been closed when people first started calling for it (and I include myself in the list of “kill the thread!” chanters), then they would have missed some of the issues and resolutions that have been unveiled!!!

Patience, my brother, is a wonderful virtue!!!

 

[irishpatrick]

You can simply walk away (but I assume you are stuck in my “train wreck analogy” that I posted 18 years ago on this thread).

If this thread had been closed when people first started calling for it, then they would have missed some of the issues and resolutions that have been unveiled!!!

Patience, my brother, is a wonderful virtue!!!

I have no issue with a full debate on any issue…yet we are dealing with an anti-Catholic who simply will not admit when she has been proved wrong and wants to use this place as a means to post as many any-Catholic thoughts as she can with the hope that some will stick (and we have no way of knowing that some might very well stick with less informed Catholics). Couple that with the clear fact that the OP has been addressed a hundred times here, and you see my frustration. I am not of the mind that a Catholic site needs to have “that much” patience with Protestants holding an anti-Catholic agendas.

Frankly, Jesus never told us we had to pound the truth into anyone’s head, the exact opposite actually. I think after the first 50-100 messages Ginger’s challenge was blown away. As for your other points, there are many well educated and well formed Catholics here and while there might be some points of clarification made here, there is simply nothing new being reported in this thread…Luther and the Protestants removed the books, the Church did not, that is the truth and it could have been said in one post.

IMO, the longer this thread goes, the MORE likely those less informed will have doubts, and that is precisley what Gimger wants.

As for patience, I have plenty of that as well, yet I feel Ginger has been given an awful lot of rope to go on-and-on and it should be time to close the thread. IMO of course. Take care.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Irishpatrick,

While I agree with your summary, I do not concur with ending the thread - at least just now.

I can arugue each on of those points, but you are really not wanting that. You still have not addressed your own thread challenge. You started this by stating that Catholics added books to the Canon, that has been proved wrong beyond any question, yet you refuse to admit that. That tells me, and most of us here, that you must hold an anti-Catholic agenda, which is NOT what you claimed to have in your original post.

I feel this thread should be closed.

It is true that there seems to be a lack of good faith by Ginger2 in not addressing the thread challenge … and yes, there really is not only an anti-Catholic bias, but a defiance when confronted with facts to just ignore them or continue to bluster. But, like so many others, I have benefitted from the excellent and well referenced information and insights shared by these many sincere and gifted posters.

In my judgment, Ginger2 has not kept to the rules and maybe it is time to say good-bye to future posts. But, this is just a suggestion.

God bless

 

[NotWorthy]

I have no issue with a full debate on any issue…yet we are dealing with an anti-Catholic who simply will not admit when she has been proved wrong and wants to use this place as a means to post as many any-Catholic thoughts as she can with the hope that some will stick (and we have no way of knowing that some might very well stick with less informed Catholics). Couple that with the clear fact that the OP has been addressed a hundred times here, and you see my frustration. I am not of the mind that a Catholic site needs to have “that much” patience with Protestants holding an anti-Catholic agendas.

But, I repeat. The posts in the last 24 hours, especially those of justdave’s have done a lot to clear up so loose ends. I enjoyed all the information that you posted and Patrick 457 and numerous others, but I feel that a lot was left unresolved.

I no longer feel that way, and I’m sure I’m not alone on that issue.

Frankly, Jesus never told us we had to pound the truth into anyone’s head, the exact opposite actually. I think after the first 50-100 messages Ginger’s challenge was blown away. As for your other points, there are many well educated and well formed Catholics here and while there might be some points of clarification made here, there is simply nothing new being reported in this thread…Luther and the Protestants removed the books, the Church did not, that is the truth and it could have been said in one post.

But pwrlftr and I (and I bet a few others) were still a little confused on some things. I’m sorry if we enjoyed the thread. There was simply non one stopping you from leaving, however. The thread will be closed when the moderators feel like it, but until them, I’m going to learn as much as I can.

IMO, the longer this thread goes, the MORE likely those less informed will have doubts, and that is precisley what Gimger wants.

As for patience, I have plenty of that as well, yet I feel Ginger has been given an awful lot of rope to go on-and-on and it should be time to close the thread. IMO of course. Take care.

I think those doubts have been cleared up. Seeking the truth should not be hindered. It’s quotes like that lend creedence to anti-catholic rhetoric that the clergy wish to keep an ignorant congregation.

And in regards to Ginger and her motives… Jesus won’t judge her until her death. We shouldn’t rush either.

 

[NotWorthy]

Who knows? Our good sister Ginger2 may see the light and return to the flock!!! But I seriously doubt it with all the “anti-catholic” rhetoric being thrown at her.

 

[irishpatrick]

It is really not up to me anyway…

 

[NotWorthy]

It is really not up to me anyway…

And for that (at least in this instance) I am thankful. For I’ve feel that I’ve mined a great deal of gold in this thread, Thank God!!!