Questions about the Canonization of the Deuterocanon

[ECF_Reader]

So I have been having a friendly debate on the Deuterocanon with a friend of mine.

My argument for the Deuterocanon has been that, while there was some debate about the canon in the early Church (both OT and NT), the full protestant canon wasn’t seen until the councils in the late 4th century (Hippo and Carthage, specifically). However, in addition to the full Protestant canon, these canons always included the Catholic Deuterocanon of today. So that while there was debate about the Deuterocanon, it was generally resolved by the end of the 4th century and for the most part wasn’t seriously challenged again until the Reformation.

My opponent’s argument is this:

My argument is not against the books because of the opinions of certain men, but because the opinion of the men we respect differed greatly. I still hold that historically the books consistently confirmed through Christendom were the 22 books of the Jewish Canon.

So the early church information on canonization and the Deuterocanon that I have found has been kind of sparse and varied. I would like some early church writings and other sources concerning the following. In quotes are arguments from my opponent, many are copy/pastes from the net. I tried to organize these the best I can but of course some are overlapping subjects. Please help me to verify these claims. [Note: I have to split this up in to two posts due to the length]

**
Claim 1: Opinions of ECF on the deutercanon “differed greatly.”**

The church fathers accepted the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. The only exception was Augustine (A. D. 400) who included the books of the Apocrypha (those “extra” books that some Bibles include between the books of the Old and New Testaments). However, he did acknowledge that they were not fully authoritative. The books of the Apocrypha were not officially recognized as part of the canon until the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) and then only by the Roman Catholic church.67
Although some fathers accepted them, others vehemently opposed their use, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome.

Claim 2: Most (or at least some) ECF considered the Deuterocanon as a separate lower class of scripture than the protocanon (i.e., a “High Canon” and a “Low Canon”

Eusebius of Caesarea was an early historian of the Church. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324) he discusses questions of canonicity in several places. His view of the Old Testament canon is described thus by Westcott:
Eusebius has left no express judgment on the contents of the Old Testament. In three places he quotes from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place ‘the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;’ and again,‘the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;’ and, lastly, ‘the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.’ In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the ‘Divine Scriptures;’ and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as ‘controverted’ books. On the other hand, like the older Fathers, he quotes in the same manner as the contents of the Hebrew Canon passages from Baruch and Wisdom. On the whole, it may be concluded that he regarded the Apocrypha of the Old Testament in the same light as the books in the New Testament, which were ‘controverted and yet familiarly used by many.’ The books of the Hebrew Canon alone were in his technical language ‘acknowledged.’ (Brooke Foss Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches [London: MacMillan and Co., 1896], p. 153.)

The debate created a high canon and low canon which has been my stance throughout this debate (i.e. profitable but not doctrinal).

Claim 2a: Example of this, Jerome did not believe that the Deuterocanon was inspired and only included it in the Vulgate after being forced by Church authorities.

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Is this actually from the New Catholic Encyclopedia? I don’t have a copy of it but I couldn’t find it anywhere else online other than anti-Catholic websites. It doesn’t sound very Catholic to me.

I desperately want an unbiased history on Jerome and the Deuterocanon. Protestants seem to say he was opposed to it but his hand was forced, Catholics seem to say that Jerome accepted it.

 

[ECF_Reader]

**Claim 3

Jesus endorsed an OT canon that did not include the Deuterocanon…**

Christ himself referred to the law, the prophets, and the psalms when referring to Scripture. He also referred to the twenty-two/twenty-four book composition in this phrase below.

Luke 11:51 - “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation” (NKJV).

Notice how this matches the layout of the Hebrew Bible. Most scholars agree two Jewish canons already existed by this time, and Christ Himself showed a preference toward one specific canon.

**Claim 4

The Deuterocanon was not fully accepted even by the Catholic church until the council of Trent.**

Again, this New Catholic Enclyclopedia entry:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Also, this claim:

The matter of the Apocrypha was not settled until 1546 when in response to the Reformation the Catholic Church promoted historically questioned text to scripture. I still hold that historically the books consistently confirmed through Christendom were the 22 books of the Jewish Canon.

And:

It wasn’t until A.D. 405 that Pope Innocent I endorsed the Apocrypha—after the Council of Carthage—even though Jerome (who translated the Bible and Apocrypha into Latin and was also Catholic) strictly opposed it as Scripture. Catholic Cardinal Cajetan around the time of the Reformation in the 16th century A.D. reveals that there were two different levels of canon in the Roman Church (a strict canon and non-official canon that was still useful for teaching in the church) in regards to this council he says in his commentary:
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.4

The issue that the Reformers had was not that the books were used, but that they had been promoted to doctrinal status which had never been the attention even after confirmation at Carthage. This position of doctrinal use came at Trent in 1546.

---

OK, I know that was a doozy of a first post, but thanks in advance for your help! I guess to summarize, I’m just looking for information about the early debate around the Deuterocanon and how it was finally resolved, and any later debate/uncertainty regarding the Deuterocanon. Thanks!!!

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

This should address most of the concerns raised. Note especially that the Council of Florence (1438-45) listed the present RC canon and it was reaffirmed by Trent. I’ll include patristic and other data in a post below.

A key contemporary researcher, the Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., writes that “the church received ‘scriptures’ from Judaism but not a canon.” “The Bible and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration.” Interpretation 29 (October 1975):356, 358.] He goes on, based on evidence amassed in this article and his works below, “we now know that the Jewish canon [post-90 AD] was not the scriptures of Jesus and the apostles.” (358) Further, he notes elsewhere, “Two different communities [the Jewish and Christian] were involved in defining canons out of the common material of pre-70 Judaism.” “The Old Testament of the Early Church,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (April 1966):201] “In the days of Jesus and the apostles, the status of the Jewish canon (and this prevailed throughout Judaism) was that of a closed collection of Law, a closed collection of Prophets, and a large undifferentiated number of Jewish religious writings consisting of a later defined collection of ‘Writings,’ the books later called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, other books known to us only by name, and perhaps other books unknown and lost. And it was this canonical situation that passed from Judaism to Christianity as the Scriptures of the early Church.” (199)

See also Sundberg’s The Old Testament of the Early Church. Harvard Theological Studies 20, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University, 1964.
**A good summary of his work is a short address he gave available on the web and this might be a good place to start.
department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm

As indicated above, when the Christian Church entered the picture there was no defined list of Jewish books. In these days the Church cited Scripture in the Septuagint translation (including most citations in the NT) again suggesting that the larger canon was used in Palestine. The majority of Christian writers at this time cite deuterocanonical works in their discussions in the same manner as the 39 other canonical books. So do many later writers. The lack of a clearly defined Jewish canon early on is reflected in the debates among Christian writers at this time.

What we really have in the 1st century, as Sundberg observed, is two separate communities (Judaism and the Christian Church) defining their canons out of the common body of Jewish sacred writings.

So, as indicated, the issue was disputed and somewhat fluid. Acceptance of the shorter canon was the minority view among the fathers. A reading the fathers as a whole and the history of the Church shows that the trend from early on was toward accepting all the books that are now in the Catholic canon.

No scholarly authority claims that the OT canon for the Christian community was definitively set in the early Church. They indicate that the larger canon is testified to in the early Church by numerous witnesses, had its dissenters, grew in acceptance, was affirmed at the Council of Florence (1438-45) in 1442 and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-63). Given the lack of clear agreement concerning the canon, Florence and Trent acted to discern in the Holy Spirit which books belong to the OT canon.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The Epistle of Barnabas 6 written about 74 AD quotes Wisdom (2:12).

The Didache 4,5 (~90 AD) quotes Sirach (4:31).

Clement of Rome (+101) quotes Wisdom (12:12 then 11:21) in (To the Corinthians 27).

Hermas (+155) in The Shepherd draws upon Tobit in (II,6,2) and Sirach in (II,8; II,9,24).

Polycarp (+156) in To the Phillipians 10 quotes Tobit 4:10; 12:9.

[These early writers use the Jewish deuteronomicals. They do not differentiate. They use them all in the same way often indirectly quoting deuterocanonicals as they do with the protocanonicals.]

Melito of Sardis (~170 AD) suggests he got his list from the Jews “Accordingly when I went to the East and reached the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below.” (his list is quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv, 26) It does not include Lamentations, Nehemiah, or Esther. These discrepancies again testify to the fluid state of the Jewish canon.

Irenaeus (~180 AD) cites Susanna (Against Heresies IV,26,3) and Baruch 4:36-5:9 (Against Heresies V,35,1).

The Muratorian Canon (170-210 AD) includes Wisdom in its canon of the New Testament!

Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215) quotes Sirach and referred to it as “Scripture” twice (The Instructor 1,8; 3,4), quotes Wisdom (7:17-18; 16:26) in (The Instructor 2,1) and Baruch (4:4; 3:9) in (The Instructor 1,10); and quotes Tobit (12:8) calling it “Scripture” (Stromata 6,12).

Hippolytus (+236) comments on the Susanna (Commentary on Daniel 6,61), often quotes Wisdom (2:1,12-13, 15-16) in (Against the Jews 65), cites Baruch (Against the Noetus 2) and 1 Maccabees (Commentary on Daniel, 2:32), Tobit (Commentary on Daniel 6,55).

Tertullian (160-250) from West Africa quotes Wisdom (1:6) in (On the Soul 15), Wisdom (1:1) in (Prescription Against the Heretics 7), and Baruch (Scorpiace 8).

Cyprian of Carthage (200-258) from west Africa quotes 1 Maccabees twice (Treatises 12,3,4; 12,3,15), Wisdom (3:4-8) in (Treatises 12,3,15), quotes Tobit calling it “Holy Scripture” (Treatise 4,32), and also quotes Sirach calling it “Holy Scripture” (Treatise 7,9). In Epistle 51/55:22 he quotes Wisdom (1:13) saying before hand “For since it is written.”

Origen (+254) At the same time in a reply to a letter by Julius Africanus (Letter from Origen to Africanus), he defends the sacredness of Tobit, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel by, among things, their usage in the churches. In his Hexapla edition of the Old Testament all the deuterocanonical books are present. He cites both 2 Maccabees (7:28) and Wisdom (18:24) as “holy Scripture” (De Principiis II, 1, 5; II, 3, 6), calls Judith “Scripture” (Homily 20 on Jeremiah, 7.3), and cites Tobit (12:7) in (Commentary on Romans, 2.4.4.5) and Tobit (3:16-17) calling it “Scripture” (On Prayer 11).
In the text of Origen frequently referred to, written in 244 AD, he gives the total number of OT books as 22, includes none of the deuterocanonical books, omits the 12 minor prophets, and includes the Letter of Jeremiah. He says: “The twenty-two books according to the Hebrews are these: . . .” (Commentary on Psalm 1 cited in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25) It is establish that by this time the Jews had settled their canon containing 22 books.

Alexander of Alexandria (+326), a Patriarch of Alexandria, quotes Sirach (quoted in Theodoret of Cyrus’ Ecclesiastical History 1,3).

Cyril of Jerusalem (+386) in the Catechetical Lectures includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah in the canon (4, 35) and quotes Baruch (11:15). He states (4, 33): “Learn also diligently, and from the church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what are the books of the new.” He quotes Sirach (3:21-22) in (6, 4) and Wisdom (13:5) in (9, 2), and cites the story of Susanna in (16, 31) as well as Bel and the Dragon in (14, 25).

St. Epiphanius (+403) included Sirach and Wisdom in the New Testament!! (Panarion 76 Conf. Act 5). He also includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah in the canon of the OT (Panarion 8, 6).

St. Athanasius (295-373) includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah in his OT canon and omits Esther (Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, 4), quotes Tobit (4:18) in his Defense before Constantius 17, quotes Tobit (12:7) in Apologia Against the Arians (I,11), Baruch (3:12) in Discourses Against the Arians (I,19), Sirach (1:8) in Discourses Against the Arians (II,79), and Wisdom 2:23 (On the Incarnation of the Word, 5, 2).

St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-367) quotes Wisdom (1,7), the disputed passages in Daniel (On the Trinity 4,8), 2 Maccabees (On the Trinity 4,16), and Baruch (On the Trinity 4,42). He includes the Epistle of Jeremiah in his listing of canonical books and adds without further qualification “To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome.” (Expositions of the Psalms, 15).

While Jerome’s (347-420) list is limited to the 39 of the shorter canon, he includes the disputed parts of Daniel in the canon.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

St. Basil the Great (330-379) quotes Sirach calling it “Scripture” (Hexaemeron, 6:10), quotes 2 Maccabees (Letter 6,2 - To the wife of Nectarius), Baruch (On the Holy Spirit 6,15), Judith (On the Holy Spirit, 8,19), and Wisdom (11:20) in (Epistle 219,1 - To the clergy of Samosata).

St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) calls the book of Wisdom (1:4) “Scripture” (On Virginity 15).

St. Gregory of Nazianzen (329-389) quotes Wisdom “as it is written” along with Jeremiah (Oration 28,8), cites 2 Maccabees (Oration 43,74), and Judith calling it “Scripture” (Oration 45,15). In his listing of OT books he does not include Esther and does not include any of the deuterocanonicals (His poem Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture).

St. John Chrysostom (349-407) quotes Wisdom (1:5) in (Homilies on John 41), Wis 2:15 (Three homilies on the Power of Demons III, 1), Wis 3:1 (Homilies on Matthew, XXVIII, 3), Wis 11:23 saying “as it is written” (Homilies on Philippians IV) and Tobit (Homilies Concerning Statues 13, 7), the story of Susanna (Homilies on 1st Corinthians 15,10), and calls Sirach “(holy) Scripture” (Homilies on John 48; Homily 4 on Ephesians).

St. Ambrose (340-397) quotes Baruch (Concerning Repentance I,9,43), quotes 2 Maccabees regarding Jeremiah (Duties of the Clergy III,17,101), quotes Sirach calling it “Scripture” (Duties of the Clergy I,2,5) and Tobit as “Scripture” (Epistle 63,16), quotes Judith (10:3ff) in Concerning Widows (7,38), quotes Wisdom (3:13) in Concerning Virgins (I,7,35), and the story of Susanna in On the Holy Spirit (III,6,39).

St. Augustine (354-430) lists and accepts the larger Catholic OT canon and calls it “Scripture” (De doctrina christina II,8,13), and he uses all the books of the larger canon without distinction in his writings. In his De praedestinatione sanctorum 27 (cf. 29) he argues for the canonicity of Wisdom as he does similarly in De Civitas Dei 17, 20, 1.

Pope Innocent I (+417) in 405 listed and accepted the larger canon (Epistle 6,7 - to Exuperius).

Pope Leo the Great (400-461) quotes Tobit (Sermon 10,4), Wisdom twice (2:24; 9:15) in (Sermon 77,2; 95,5), and quotes Sirach calling it “Scripture” (Sermon 49,6).

The regional Council of Laodicea (c. 360) in canon 60 accepts Baruch explicitly along with Jeremiah but no other deutero-canonical books. It also includes the Epistle of Jeremiah in the canon of the OT. It does not include Revelation in the NT canon.

The regional council in Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Synod of Carthage (397) listed the larger canon, i.e., they include the deuterocanonicals.

The Apostolic Constitutions (~400) in (VIII, 47, 85) provides a canonical list of the OT which includes Judith, “three [books] of the Maccabees,” and Sirach.

Another witness to the larger canon is the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) version. It is a group of Latin translations of some of the Septuagint by Christians attested to as far back as the 2nd and 3rd c in North Africa, Southern Gaul (France) and Italy, and used by Latin-speaking Christian communities there. It reflects an earlier state of the Septuagint than does the Vulgate. In fact Jerome in some cases just took the translation of the Vetus Latina for deuterocanonical books. It includes Sirach, Wisdom, and 1-2 Maccabees

The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (300s), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others without any distinction. It should also be noted that these manuscripts do not all contain the same books. Again, this shows no closed canon at this time. These reflect manuscript traditions back to the Jewish period.

Pope Gregory the Great (540-604) in his work Pastoral Rule quotes Sirach numerous times (II,6; III,20,21,25), Wisdom (2:24 & 1:5) in (III,10 & 11), and Tobit (III,20). In Morals on the Book of Job (Vol. II, Part IV, XIX, 34) he excludes 1 Maccabees from the canon, but uses it: ”With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.”

St. John Damascene (676-749) quotes Wisdom (3:1) as “Scripture” (Orthodox Faith IV,15) and quotes Baruch (Orthodox Faith IV,18) although he does not include Wisdom in his canonical list (IV, 17).

The Second Council of Nicea (787) quotes Wisdom 3:14 as Scripture along with 2 Cor 2:17 and 2 Thess 2:14 in its decree on Images and Tradition (DS 303/602).

Thomas Aquinas (125-1274) in the Summa Theologica quotes liberally from all 7 deuterocanonical books. Sirach 1:10 quoted as “It is written” (ST, III, 12, 4) as is Tobit 4:13 in (ST, II-II, 154, 2).

Greek Orthodox sources indicate the plurality of voices on the subject of the canon in the East. Still, by the Middle Ages the canon of the Eastern Church and the Western Roman Church were both the larger version.

The Confession of Dositheus from the The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) is an authoritative expression of the Orthodox Faith in response to Protestant influences in particular the Calvinist creed of Cyril Lucaris. This confession of faith listed the larger canon (Question III).

 

[Defender1]

So I have been having a friendly debate on the Deuterocanon with a friend of mine.

My argument for the Deuterocanon has been that, while there was some debate about the canon in the early Church (both OT and NT), the full protestant canon wasn’t seen until the councils in the late 4th century (Hippo and Carthage, specifically). However, in addition to the full Protestant canon, these canons always included the Catholic Deuterocanon of today. So that while there was debate about the Deuterocanon, it was generally resolved by the end of the 4th century and for the most part wasn’t seriously challenged again until the Reformation.

My opponent’s argument is this:

So the early church information on canonization and the Deuterocanon that I have found has been kind of sparse and varied. I would like some early church writings and other sources concerning the following. In quotes are arguments from my opponent, many are copy/pastes from the net. I tried to organize these the best I can but of course some are overlapping subjects. Please help me to verify these claims. [Note: I have to split this up in to two posts due to the length]

**
Claim 1: Opinions of ECF on the deutercanon “differed greatly.”**

Claim 2: Most (or at least some) ECF considered the Deuterocanon as a separate lower class of scripture than the protocanon (i.e., a “High Canon” and a “Low Canon”

Claim 2a: Example of this, Jerome did not believe that the Deuterocanon was inspired and only included it in the Vulgate after being forced by Church authorities.

Is this actually from the New Catholic Encyclopedia? I don’t have a copy of it but I couldn’t find it anywhere else online other than anti-Catholic websites. It doesn’t sound very Catholic to me.

I desperately want an unbiased history on Jerome and the Deuterocanon. Protestants seem to say he was opposed to it but his hand was forced, Catholics seem to say that Jerome accepted it.

I have a blog I keep up that has a section on the Deuterocanon.
I do not have time to quote everything now but here is the blog .

defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com
I have a good section that will well inform you on this subject .

 

[Newsy]

Interesting that you bring this topic up, this month’s edition of “Today in the word” has a reference to this.

Today in the word is a protestant devotional, put out monthly, by Moody Bible Institute. In a section called Q&A from C. Donald Cole, he tackles the question of “When the scriptures were originally translated, why were some of the books omitted (Baruch, Judith, Tobit,ect)?” I found his answer to be misleading.
He says
“The question is about the canonicity, or the recognition of books as authoritative. The canon of the old testament was fixed before Christ and confirmed at the council of Jamnia in A.D. 90.That list of books did not include the books known as the Apochrypha (Baruch, Judith, ect.) which were written about 200 years after Malachi. The rabbis never accepted them, neither did the Church as a whole. Not until the Council of Trent in 1546, during the counter-reformation, were they given official standing, and then only in the Roman Catholic Church.
For details, consult a standard Introduction to the Bible.”

His answer completely rejects the historical facts I was taught. I know this is a protestant source, but I hoped for better scholarship than this. I wonder how many will be mislead by this answer.

 

[patrick457]

Interesting that you bring this topic up, this month’s edition of “Today in the word” has a reference to this.

Today in the word is a protestant devotional, put out monthly, by Moody Bible Institute. In a section called Q&A from C. Donald Cole, he tackles the question of “When the scriptures were originally translated, why were some of the books omitted (Baruch, Judith, Tobit,ect)?” I found his answer to be misleading.
He says
“The question is about the canonicity, or the recognition of books as authoritative. The canon of the old testament was fixed before Christ and confirmed at the council of Jamnia in A.D. 90.That list of books did not include the books known as the Apochrypha (Baruch, Judith, ect.) which were written about 200 years after Malachi. The rabbis never accepted them, neither did the Church as a whole. Not until the Council of Trent in 1546, during the counter-reformation, were they given official standing, and then only in the Roman Catholic Church.
For details, consult a standard Introduction to the Bible.”

His answer completely rejects the historical facts I was taught. I know this is a protestant source, but I hoped for better scholarship than this. I wonder how many will be mislead by this answer.

About the supposed ‘Council of Jamnia’ (in reality a once-widely accepted 19th century hypothesis formulated by German Jewish scholar Heinrich Graetz) I suggest you read this recent thread. I quote one post I wrote:

Before the fall of Jerusalem, Rabbi Johanan ben-Zakkai established an academy at Yavneh which proceeded to function like a Sanhedrin between the period between the Jewish revolts of AD 70-132. He was then succeeded by Rabbi Gamaliel II. Somewhere between AD 80 and AD 117 Gamaliel was deposed for a time; Eleazar ben-Azariah was installed as head of the Yavneh academy. According to the Mishnah, at the day of Eleazar’s installation, the sages ruled that both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes “make the hands unclean” (i.e. holy). The same passage goes on to state that “all the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean”, and so it is clear that the point at issue was whether the two books ranked among the Scriptures. This passage is then followed by a series of enactments introduced by the phrase “on that day” (Mishnah Yadaim 3.5-4.4). Later tradition (Talmud, tractate Berakhoth 28a), taking this formula at face value, claimed that every ruling prefixed by the phrase were indeed made on the same occasion.

This is where Heinrich Graetz and his ilk seem to get the idea of a ‘Council of Jamnia’. But even if we grant that something similar to it did exist, it should not be interpreted in the same way as Christian use of the term ‘council’, Nicaea- or even Vatican II-style. Admittedly, the term ‘council’ does have the disadvantage of making people assume official action taken at specific meetings held at specific dates.

On the contrary, it would seem that the deliberations at Yavneh were closer to the character of a school, academy, or court. All that the story about the Songs of Songs and Ecclesiastes tell us was that there was some debate about the exact status of these books. In fact, it would seem that the dispute were not terminated by the decisions at Yavneh: even as late as the late 2nd century, Rabbi Meir (circa 135-170), famous as one of the greatest of the Tannaim of the fourth generation, was disputing the idea that Ecclesiastes defiled the hands! There is no evidence that the status of other Writings was debated, or that a final decision was reached in Yavneh.

Thus, the idea of a Council of Jamnia that is analogous to Christian Church councils has no foundation. The Jamnia hypothesis however, admits of a looser definition. Hence, many of those who continue to accept the hypothesis now define the term as a loose one (and an unsatisfactory one at that), more of a convenient catch-all symbol designating the decisions that the schools that gathered at Yavneh had reached, which could represent the crystallization of long processes that occurred in early Judaism. In any case, it is even doubtful whether the actions of the academy at Yavneh were official decisions; there was probably no body in Judaism that functioned in an ‘official’ capacity post-AD 70.

 

[Defender1]

Interesting that you bring this topic up, this month’s edition of “Today in the word” has a reference to this.

Today in the word is a protestant devotional, put out monthly, by Moody Bible Institute. In a section called Q&A from C. Donald Cole, he tackles the question of “When the scriptures were originally translated, why were some of the books omitted (Baruch, Judith, Tobit,ect)?” I found his answer to be misleading.
He says
“The question is about the canonicity, or the recognition of books as authoritative. The canon of the old testament was fixed before Christ and confirmed at the council of Jamnia in A.D. 90.That list of books did not include the books known as the Apochrypha (Baruch, Judith, ect.) which were written about 200 years after Malachi. The rabbis never accepted them, neither did the Church as a whole. Not until the Council of Trent in 1546, during the counter-reformation, were they given official standing, and then only in the Roman Catholic Church.
For details, consult a standard Introduction to the Bible.”

His answer completely rejects the historical facts I was taught. I know this is a protestant source, but I hoped for better scholarship than this. I wonder how many will be mislead by this answer.

People can write books on anything and it does not have to be true . There are books written about literal brothers of Jesus CHrist , there is a book written claiming the 7 books we have as apocrypha .Anything can be written . Many protestants believe that the council of Trent was when the 7 were approved the truth is that Jesus studied these books and early church fathers are found quoting from them , among them Clement of Rome around 90AD quoted from these books . They were officially approved by The church in 393 AD council of Hippo .

 

[Newsy]

About the supposed ‘Council of Jamnia’ (in reality a once-widely accepted 19th century hypothesis formulated by German Jewish scholar Heinrich Graetz) I suggest you read this recent thread. I quote one post I wrote:

Before the fall of Jerusalem, Rabbi Johanan ben-Zakkai established an academy at Yavneh which proceeded to function like a Sanhedrin between the period between the Jewish revolts of AD 70-132. He was then succeeded by Rabbi Gamaliel II. Somewhere between AD 80 and AD 117 Gamaliel was deposed for a time; Eleazar ben-Azariah was installed as head of the Yavneh academy. According to the Mishnah, at the day of Eleazar’s installation, the sages ruled that both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes “make the hands unclean” (i.e. holy). The same passage goes on to state that “all the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean”, and so it is clear that the point at issue was whether the two books ranked among the Scriptures. This passage is then followed by a series of enactments introduced by the phrase “on that day” (Mishnah Yadaim 3.5-4.4). Later tradition (Talmud, tractate Berakhoth 28a), taking this formula at face value, claimed that every ruling prefixed by the phrase were indeed made on the same occasion.

This is where Heinrich Graetz and his ilk seem to get the idea of a ‘Council of Jamnia’. But even if we grant that something similar to it did exist, it should not be interpreted in the same way as Christian use of the term ‘council’, Nicaea- or even Vatican II-style. Admittedly, the term ‘council’ does have the disadvantage of making people assume official action taken at specific meetings held at specific dates.

On the contrary, it would seem that the deliberations at Yavneh were closer to the character of a school, academy, or court. All that the story about the Songs of Songs and Ecclesiastes tell us was that there was some debate about the exact status of these books. In fact, it would seem that the dispute were not terminated by the decisions at Yavneh: even as late as the late 2nd century, Rabbi Meir (circa 135-170), famous as one of the greatest of the Tannaim of the fourth generation, was disputing the idea that Ecclesiastes defiled the hands! There is no evidence that the status of other Writings was debated, or that a final decision was reached in Yavneh.

Thus, the idea of a Council of Jamnia that is analogous to Christian Church councils has no foundation. The Jamnia hypothesis however, admits of a looser definition. Hence, many of those who continue to accept the hypothesis now define the term as a loose one (and an unsatisfactory one at that), more of a convenient catch-all symbol designating the decisions that the schools that gathered at Yavneh had reached, which could represent the crystallization of long processes that occurred in early Judaism. In any case, it is even doubtful whether the actions of the academy at Yavneh were official decisions; there was probably no body in Judaism that functioned in an ‘official’ capacity post-AD 70.

Thanks for the info. I just looked on wikipedia and found that the Council of Jamnia is a hypothetical meeting. We don’t know that it even took place, even if it did it was concerning Jews not Christians. Not exactly what was represented in the quote I posted earlier.

I am always disappointed when facts are misrepresented and twisted to try to further someone’s point of view. I will be offering a prayer for the one who wrote that piece.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for the info. I just looked on wikipedia and found that the Council of Jamnia is a hypothetical meeting. We don’t know that it even took place, even if it did it was concerning Jews not Christians. Not exactly what was represented in the quote I posted earlier.

I am always disappointed when facts are misrepresented and twisted to try to further someone’s point of view. I will be offering a prayer for the one who wrote that piece.

I think we mustn’t be too hard on the author. As mentioned, the theory of a ‘council’ in Yavneh/Jamnia that decided the Jewish canon was once a widely-held view in academia that only came under question and reevaluation starting from the 1960’s. Even today you can see the idea invoked in many a discussion (even in Catholic circles): that shows how influential it continues to be. So I don’t think there is purposeful malice involved here, just ignorance of recent scholarship.

 

[patrick457]

And just to mention: it is even doubtful that there existed a fixed canon of Scripture at the time of Jesus, considering the diversity and plurality of Second Temple period Judaism (that some even speak of ‘JudaismS’).

 

[Link0126]

Interesting that you bring this topic up, this month’s edition of “Today in the word” has a reference to this.

Today in the word is a protestant devotional, put out monthly, by Moody Bible Institute. In a section called Q&A from C. Donald Cole, he tackles the question of “When the scriptures were originally translated, why were some of the books omitted (Baruch, Judith, Tobit,ect)?” I found his answer to be misleading.
He says
“The question is about the canonicity, or the recognition of books as authoritative. The canon of the old testament was fixed before Christ and confirmed at the council of Jamnia in A.D. 90.That list of books did not include the books known as the Apochrypha (Baruch, Judith, ect.) which were written about 200 years after Malachi. The rabbis never accepted them, neither did the Church as a whole. Not until the Council of Trent in 1546, during the counter-reformation, were they given official standing, and then only in the Roman Catholic Church.
For details, consult a standard Introduction to the Bible.”

His answer completely rejects the historical facts I was taught. I know this is a protestant source, but I hoped for better scholarship than this. I wonder how many will be mislead by this answer.

Moody is very anti-Catholic but they aren’t stupid… I think this may actually border on lying. And I’m not kidding.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Although some fathers accepted them, others vehemently opposed their use, including Athanasius

Article from 1 year ago today!
Did Athanasius reject the Deuterocanon?

See also related info from Dave Armstrong.

As well, look up if you are able some of the reference Fr of Jazz provided. That kind of info debunks the myth that some of these ECFs “vehemently” opposed the Deuterocanon. I thought I had heard that exact wording once before, and indeed, it is taken word-for-word from so-called truthnet.