Question about Deuterocanonical Books

[One_point]

You are fighting a correct, but losing battle. We are Christian, not Jewish. If he chooses to follow the canon of the Pharisees (read Matthew 23 to see what Jesus had to say about them), that is his concern. The Church, (read Acts 15) by her authority, has declared the canon and it is set for all time. If your friend doubts the Church and her authority, then advise him to seek out a Rabbi with a scalpel ASAP!

Those books were read and used by faithful Jews since before Christ. Both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have used those books consistently in the mass/divine liturgy for almost 2,000 years. 497 years ago, a certain psychologically challenged European expressed doubts about them, but nevertheless left them in the bible that he attached his name to. Your friend’s bible does not have those books. You might ask him why.

In truth, you are wasting your time. His heart is hardened and his heels are dug in. No document, no words that any of us can say will ever convince him. Many of us have tried this and failed.

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, will convict him of the truth. You have planted the seed. I suggest disengaging and praying for him.

I think you are correct. And I’m afraid I let my pride have the better of me because he is one of those who say sickening things about the church unabashedly. I have basically teased the hell out of him and he got really angry because he could not control the debate, wanted to pose questions and have me answer but he had not responded to my points except by dismissing them as the “the roman version” and sending me off to read the Jewish, truthful, version. I will avoid him and pray.

By the way, who is that European? Martin Luther?

 

[po18guy]

I think you are correct. And I’m afraid I let my pride have the better of me because he is one of those who say sickening things about the church unabashedly. I have basically teased the hell out of him and he got really angry because he could not control the debate, wanted to pose questions and have me answer but he had not responded to my points except by dismissing them as the “the roman version” and sending me off to read the Jewish, truthful, version. I will avoid him and pray.

By the way, who is that European? Martin Luther?

Slowly I have learned not to name drop, but a certain leader of the reformation would very likely be diagnosed today as manic-depressive, or suffering from something very similar to bi-polar disorder. Below is but one snippet of a letter (in great praise) that Philipp Melanchthon wrote about his fellow rebel.

Your opponent must implicitly trust the protestant rebels, as the foundation of his faith is grounded on those two or three men. He cannot back down without admitting that he is wrong and that most of those he knows and loves are also wrong. Can’t see this happening.

As another point, since he is anti-Catholic, ask him why the Eastern Orthodox Churches have also used those same books since day one (as well as some others). Oh, and here is a protestant article about what the “reformers” thought about the Orthodox Church. Obviously, it is more accurately titled “What the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox thought about the reformers.” You see, Philipp Melanchthon and others approached the Orthodox with the hope of forming an alliance against the Papacy.

The Orthodox, after something like 6 years and 400 pages of interaction, flatly rebuffed any and all offers by the “reformers” of a communion or alliance. The Orthodox rightly asserted that it is impossible to found a “Church” while rejecting the Sacraments and the Apostolic Traditions.

Your friend must defend the man-made foundation of what he believes, so you can only pray for the Holy Spirit to work on him.

 

[Mystophilus]

What credible historical sources can I use to show: 1) that the deuterocanon was used by Jews prior to jamniah council?

They were used, but we do not, I believe, have any evidence that they were held to be sacred.

The Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT from which we get the deuterocanonical books, was translated by and for Jews, (mostly) in the centuries before Christ. Who else was going to be using them?

Also (from a Jewish source), “Curiously enough, the book of Sirach] retained its popularity among the Jews despite its exclusion from the canon”, and Judith “was originally written in Hebrew”.

It is further worth thinking about who wrote the books of Maccabees and why, given that they are Jewish nationalist texts.

Still, what is the point of all of this discussion? If you are trying to convince a Protestant that the deuterocanon belongs in the Bible, I would suggest giving up now, or trying something easier, like herding cats.

 

[Novocastrian]

It is further worth thinking about who wrote the books of Maccabees and why, given that they are Jewish nationalist texts.

As an aside, one of the most interesting things about the Maccabees and their literature is that they pretend to be/are commonly perceived to have been rather more nationalist and xenophobic than they actually were; this is evidenced by the fact that II Maccabees was definitely, and I Maccabees possibly, composed in Greek.

 

[Abu]

Mystophilus #23
If you are trying to convince a Protestant that the deuterocanon belongs in the Bible, I would suggest giving up now.

No real Catholic can “give up” in offering the truth.

As Christ gave us His Church and no others, and as Christ Himself instructed: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

As the only reason we have a Bible at all is due to the Catholic Church defining what writings, and no others, comprise the Sacred Scriptures, and the fact that the cleansing fires of purgatory are there as taught by Christ’s Church, that should be a reality which ought to be offered without ceasing.

 

[One_point]

The thing is actually, I am not the one on the offensive. The man is an anti-Catholic basher. He says things that are clearly meant to offend, like in order to be a “papist”, one must hang his brains, reject history, refuse logic etc etc. He talks about the church in the most derogatory manner, writes caricatures of our beliefs and so on. I actually started with him because someone else brought up the deuterocanonical books who had clearly just discovered them. he asked why protestants reject them and yet they are just like other old testament books? the anti-Catholic then said several things: that they are full of ridiculous contradictions, that in Maccabees some man dies four times, by an elephant and three other ways??? that jews had contempt for them and wouldn’t touch them. that Jesus never and apostles never quoted them. I was going to ignore it all but he also said that “only Catholics pretend to accept them” because they support their peculiar doctrines of worshiping saints, idols and so on. So I replied back (not to the basher but to the curious guy) that this was false. I listed all the orthodox churches that use the books because they use what was the bible of the earliest Christian church Septuagint and told him that only protestant churches do not because they do not aline with their attacks on the church and follow some mideval German who gave himself the authority to remove books from the Christian old Testament. Then the debate started.

 

[po18guy]

That man says nothing, however, about the Orthodox Churches using the same books. What is the term for that type of behavior? Does he truly think that he is more intelligent and enlightened than 2,000 years worth of the greatest Christian minds that have walked this earth? Such arrogance is a facade which conceals some level of uncertainty about his own position.

Here is a primer which debunks the common myths surrounding the Deuterocanon: catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Please help with sources! I am in an online debate with a protestant about these books. He claims my version of history where Jews only rejected them after the Jamniah council is the Rome version and I should read Jewish sources, not Roman. What credible historical sources can I use to show: 1) that the deuterocanon was used by Jews prior to jamniah council?

There is no such thing as the jamniah [sic] council. You can direct him to the Wikipedia page on the topic.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I still see no plausible explanation for Melanchthon’s efforts “harmonizing” James with Paul other than to persuade Luther - whom Melanchthon encouraged/convinced to translate the Bible into German. Melanchthon’s apology does not appear in the Luther bible. Melanchthon had no problem with James - ML did. Just whom was that apology meant to influence? Have a read of page 85 of books.google.com/books?id=taCNbJROEkYC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=melanchthon+james&source=bl&ots=YKJkVxodsV&sig=Xf3_gQPd33fvU-MvJSDoCWH_Vds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Oca_U8yXFIvz8QWsqoDQDg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=melanchthon%20james&f=false (first image below).

As to ML, a very interesting chapter in Dissent from the Creed describes his mental state, which was confirmed by none other than Melanchthon (second image below).

My post actually agrees with the first thumbnail in that Luther didn’t want to impose his views on others–but on the other hand he was hardly reticent about expressing his views as to whether certain books “bear Christ” or not.

Since Luther included books in his translation that were far more controversial (or maybe of less value in his view I should say) than James (e.g., Tobit) I don’t see how your argument holds up. Did Melanchthon also convince Luther to include that Tobit as well? And I and II Maccabees? What’s the evidence?

I’m sure Melanchthon and Luther had fiery debates on the value of James–they were after all both academics who love to debate. But whether James would or would not be included in Luther’s translation–this is at the heart of the Catholic apologetic canard–was never an open question. Luther included all the works that the Western Church had historically deemed to be scriptural. He provided his own opinion about them, felt free to denigrate some books, but let the reader decide their value on their own.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

That man says nothing, however, about the Orthodox Churches using the same books. What is the term for that type of behavior? Does he truly think that he is more intelligent and enlightened than 2,000 years worth of the greatest Christian minds that have walked this earth? Such arrogance is a facade which conceals some level of uncertainty about his own position.

Here is a primer which debunks the common myths surrounding the Deuterocanon: catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

Someone should point out to Mark Shea that the Council of Jamnia/Yavneh is a fiction. There are many threads here on this topic.

 

[Abu]

Fr John A Hardon, S.J., in *The Catholic Catechism *points out that the rabbinical school at Jamnia circa A.D. 100 redefined the canon of the Old testament for the Jews, leaving out the seven books from their Palestinian canon because not conforming to the Pentateuch, or written after the time of Esdra (circa 400 B.C.) or not in Hebrew in Palestine, and “made a fence around it.”

 

[pablope]

Tw

If, for example, one reads Luther’s introduction to Revelation, he clearly states that he’s giving you his opinion of the book (which is low) but that the reader needs to make up his own mind and reach his own conclusions.

.

I also would like to point out one thing also…as stated by Dave N…Luther said for the reader to make up your own mind…which protestant defenders of Luther omit to state when citing this and in citing other Catholics who had opinions on the DCs…like St. Jerome and Cajetan…that St. Jerome and Cajetan did not say for the reader to decide for himself, but to seek the guidance of the Church on the matter of the DCs.

 

[pablope]

Please help with sources! I am in an online debate with a protestant about these books. He claims my version of history where Jews only rejected them after the Jamniah council is the Rome version and I should read Jewish sources, not Roman. What credible historical sources can I use to show: 1) that the deuterocanon was used by Jews prior to jamniah council?

Actually, it was the Protestants, not Rome, who proposed the council of Jamnia to justify the protestant removal of the DC books.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

The “Council of Jamnia” Almost Certainly Didn’t Exist: This is a biggie. We know that there was a Rabbinical school at Jamnia, but there’s no evidence that any Council ever occurred there. The “Council” is just a hypothesis put forward in 1871 by Heinrich Graetz, to explain how the Jews ended up with a single canon.

 

[po18guy]

Actually, it was the Protestants, not Rome, who proposed the council of Jamnia to justify the protestant removal of the DC books.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

The “Council of Jamnia” Almost Certainly Didn’t Exist: This is a biggie. We know that there was a Rabbinical school at Jamnia, but there’s no evidence that any Council ever occurred there. The “Council” is just a hypothesis put forward in 1871 by Heinrich Graetz, to explain how the Jews ended up with a single canon.

And, knowing that our Lord condemned the Pharisees sevenfold (Matthew 23), they then used the Pharisaic canon! This is beyond belief!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Fr John A Hardon, S.J., in *The Catholic Catechism *points out that the rabbinical school at Jamnia circa A.D. 100 redefined the canon of the Old testament for the Jews, leaving out the seven books from their Palestinian canon because not conforming to the Pentateuch, or written after the time of Esdra (circa 400 B.C.) or not in Hebrew in Palestine, and “made a fence around it.”

This is just plain false.

 

[pablope]

This is just plain false.

Hey…Dave…can you provide protestant sources stating that Jamnia was not a council?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hey…Dave…can you provide protestant sources stating that Jamnia was not a council?

I don’t think these sources would be very convincing to all the Catholic apologists and posters that love to cite the Council of Jamnia, but Albert Sundberg and Jack P. Lewis, whose comments are reproduced in the Wikipedia article, are both Evangelicals.

Also, Lee Martin McDonald, a professor at BIOLA (thus, also an Evangelical) writes in The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission and Authority:

“It was once commonplace in the scholarly literature to note that the Jewish canon was established at the so-called Council of Jamnia around 100 C.E., but this has proved to be a scholarly fiction. There is no firm evidence for the fixing of the Jewish canon. Despite the convincing demonstration that no such decision took place…one still encounters it occasionally in the scholarly literature.”

If one goes back to the sources in the Talmud used to purported support the notion (Yadaim 3.5), it’s a simple matter to see that there’s nothing of the sort there. Even if there had been some sort of “council” at Jamnia, the opinions of the rabbis reached there wouldn’t be binding on anyone anyway. The Talmud rarely reaches conclusions; rather it records debates. This is difficult for the Western mind to grasp–that Judaism has historically been a community of debate rather than so much one of hard-and-fast conclusions.

 

[po18guy]

Someone should point out to Mark Shea that the Council of Jamnia/Yavneh is a fiction. There are many threads here on this topic.

Tag! You’re it. Otherwise, don’t complain, huh?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Tag! You’re it. Otherwise, don’t complain, huh?

? My original point was that you were citing as evidence an article by Mark Shea in an earlier post that has blatantly false information. But maybe I don’t understand your remark.

I’m curious why Catholics like Mark Shea and the late John Hardon continue/d to perpetuate this falsehood. From my perspective, it certainly doesn’t do anything to bolster the credibility of the Catholic Faith.

 

[po18guy]

Since Luther included books in his translation that were far more controversial (or maybe of less value in his view I should say) than James (e.g., Tobit) I don’t see how your argument holds up. Did Melanchthon also convince Luther to include that Tobit as well? And I and II Maccabees? What’s the evidence?

Where is the evidence that Luther had authority to do anything - anything at all?

I’m sure Melanchthon and Luther had fiery debates on the value of James–they were after all both academics who love to debate.

Your own words apply here: where’s the evidence?

But whether James would or would not be included in Luther’s translation–this is at the heart of the Catholic apologetic canard–was never an open question.

You say so.

Luther included all the works that the Western Church had historically deemed to be scriptural.

All nicely segregated to the back of the bus.

In all of your sturm und drang against the Catholic Church and her rascally apologists, you seem to completely forget that the Eastern Orthodox Churches flat out rejected the “reform” and they have the same (Deuterocanon) books in their bible - all without badmouthing scripture or segregating them.