Questions about the Deuterocanon

[Chris_S_1]

In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

Also, the book of Wisdom contains a detailed prophesy about Christ’s Passion:

Wisdom 2:10-20

10 Let us oppress the needy just man; let us neither spare the widow nor revere the old man for his hair grown white with time.
11 But let our strength be our norm of justice; for weakness proves itself useless.
12 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
13 He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14 To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15 Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.
16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."

Given that Wisdom was written 100-200 years before the Passion, how could this text NOT be inspired? Is it a lucky guess?

 

[judechild]

Are you addressing catholics, or non-catholics?

 

[Canto]

Matthew 27:41-43
41In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, "but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ "

Wisdom 2:15-22
15 Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. 16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." 21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, 22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

Romans 11:34 Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?

Wisdom 9:13 For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?

 

[Chris_S_1]

Are you addressing catholics, or non-catholics?

I’m addressing non-Catholics.

Matthew 27:41-43
41In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, "but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ "

Wisdom 2:15-22
15 Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. 16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. 17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." 21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, 22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

Romans 11:34 Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?

Wisdom 9:13 For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?

Exactly. Isn’t this proof of inspiration?

 

[diggerdomer]

In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

By some yes, by others no.

 

[BrianH]

The LXX, that probably most early Christians used, appears to be a very fluid document in terms of what books were part of it and when. I think most scholars would admit we simply do not know.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris S
In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

By some yes, by others no.

Not so. The deuteros were unanamously considered canonical from the fourth century up till the 16th century. It wasn’t till Luther decided they didn’t fit his theology that they were removed from protestant bibles. The Council of Trent formally defined the Canon as that of the Vulgate of Jerome of 400 AD. So for 1200 years the deutero’s were totally accepted as canonical and inspired but no formal defining of the canon was done because none was needed. There was no question about them until Luther and then the formal definition became necessary.

 

[diggerdomer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris S
In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

Not so. The deuteros were unanamously considered canonical from the fourth century up till the 16th century. It wasn’t till Luther decided they didn’t fit his theology that they were removed from protestant bibles. The Council of Trent formally defined the Canon as that of the Vulgate of Jerome of 400 AD. So for 1200 years the deutero’s were totally accepted as canonical and inspired but no formal defining of the canon was done because none was needed. There was no question about them until Luther and then the formal definition became necessary.

I thought “at that point” referred to the time of 2 Timothy being written, not the 4th century.

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by inkaneer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris S
In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

Not so. The deuteros were unanamously considered canonical from the fourth century up till the 16th century. It wasn’t till Luther decided they didn’t fit his theology that they were removed from protestant bibles. The Council of Trent formally defined the Canon as that of the Vulgate of Jerome of 400 AD. So for 1200 years the deutero’s were totally accepted as canonical and inspired but no formal defining of the canon was done because none was needed. There was no question about them until Luther and then the formal definition became necessary.

I thought “at that point” referred to the time of 2 Timothy being written, not the 4th century.

No, they were considered scripture first by the Jews before Christ. That is how they were included in the Septuagint which was the Jewish scriptures translated into Greek. Later, after Christ, they were removed from the Jewish scriptures but remained in the Septuagint. The christian church was becoming more and more populated by Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles so the early church kept the Septuagint. The complete canon of scripture was settled in the fourth century. The OT was what we would call today a “no brainer”. The church adopted the Septuagint. It was the NT writings that posed the problem of determining which of the plethora of writings were inspired and which were the product of Gnostics or others.

 

[Josh128]

In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

Also, the book of Wisdom contains a detailed prophesy about Christ’s Passion:

Given that Wisdom was written 100-200 years before the Passion, how could this text NOT be inspired? Is it a lucky guess?

Great post-- that passage is a great argument right there-- it matches the Gospel descriptions of Jesus so well I would be amazed if the Gospel writers werent familiar with it/didnt consider it inspired!

 

[SemperReformada]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris S
In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

Not so. The deuteros were unanamously considered canonical from the fourth century up till the 16th century. It wasn’t till Luther decided they didn’t fit his theology that they were removed from protestant bibles. The Council of Trent formally defined the Canon as that of the Vulgate of Jerome of 400 AD. So for 1200 years the deutero’s were totally accepted as canonical and inspired but no formal defining of the canon was done because none was needed. There was no question about them until Luther and then the formal definition became necessary.

This is not true in the least.

First, Jerome never accepted the dc’s as inspired and the Vulgate included prologues (written by Jerome) to each dc book which cast doubt upon their canonocity.

Second, even at the council of Trent we see that some of the council fathers rejected the inspiration of the dc’s.

There is a lot more to this issue but you can go to www. newadvent.org and search of “OT canon” and read the article there and you will clearly see that the dc’s had troube all along.

 

[crowcounty]

In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

Also, the book of Wisdom contains a detailed prophesy about Christ’s Passion:

Given that Wisdom was written 100-200 years before the Passion, how could this text NOT be inspired? Is it a lucky guess?

390 ad is when the catholic church reluctantly cannonized the bible with apocrypha pope damascus

 

[Canto]

This is not true in the least.

First, Jerome never accepted the dc’s as inspired and the Vulgate included prologues (written by Jerome) to each dc book which cast doubt upon their canonocity.

Second, even at the council of Trent we see that some of the council fathers rejected the inspiration of the dc’s.

There is a lot more to this issue but you can go to www. newadvent.org and search of “OT canon” and read the article there and you will clearly see that the dc’s had troube all along.

Some in the early Church questioned some NT books, even Luther questioned some NT books, ulimatley the Church at the council of Rome in 382 AD decreed a 73 book canon, and though some have disagreed it has never ever changed.

St Jerome expressed misgivings about the deuterocanon but submitted to the authority of the Church. Jerome even defended his use of the long form of Daniel asking what sins he had commited by following such judgement.

What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? . . . I was not relating my own personal views [when I wrote the objections of the Jews to the longer form of Daniel in my introduction], but rather the remarks that [the Jews] are wont to make against us [Christians who accept the longer form of Daniel], (Jerome Against Rufinius, 11:33).

“…does not the scripture say…” (epistle 108 404 AD – Jerome quoting Ecclesiasticus)

“…remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ…” (Jerome epistle 31:2 384 AD)

“Do you expect me to explain the purposes and plans of God? The book of Wisdom gives an answer to your foolish questions… and in the same place ‘In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God.’ You will perhaps deny the authority of this book…” (Jerome against the Pelagians)

“I speak with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of the cross. I, who follow none but Christ as first, am joined in communion with your holiness, that is with the see of Peter. On this rock I know the Church was built. - St Jerome

Matthew 6:14-15
14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

Ecclesiasticus aka Sirach 28:2
Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.

 

[Chris_S_1]

This is not true in the least.

First, Jerome never accepted the dc’s as inspired and the Vulgate included prologues (written by Jerome) to each dc book which cast doubt upon their canonocity.

Second, even at the council of Trent we see that some of the council fathers rejected the inspiration of the dc’s.

There is a lot more to this issue but you can go to www. newadvent.org and search of “OT canon” and read the article there and you will clearly see that the dc’s had troube all along.

Did Jerome speak for the whole Church? Does the fact that Jerome may have doubted their inspiration determine whether or not they are actually inspired?

I still don’t see how anyone can really reject the book of Wisdom as uninspired after reading the prophesy of Christ’s Passion.

 

[Josh128]

Did Jerome speak for the whole Church? Does the fact that Jerome may have doubted their inspiration determine whether or not they are actually inspired?

I still don’t see how anyone can really reject the book of Wisdom as uninspired after reading the prophesy of Christ’s Passion.

Very true-- the passages from Wisdom shown in the first thread of this page UNDENIABLY mirror Jesus’ Ministry and Passion.

 

[BrianH]

No, they were considered scripture first by the Jews before Christ. That is how they were included in the Septuagint which was the Jewish scriptures translated into Greek. Later, after Christ, they were removed from the Jewish scriptures but remained in the Septuagint. The christian church was becoming more and more populated by Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles so the early church kept the Septuagint. The complete canon of scripture was settled in the fourth century. The OT was what we would call today a “no brainer”. The church adopted the Septuagint. It was the NT writings that posed the problem of determining which of the plethora of writings were inspired and which were the product of Gnostics or others.

You cannot prove this. The canon of the LXX at the time of Christ is not known. In fact the term canon is anachronistic as it relates to 1st century Judaism. We do not have any lists from that time that include these books in the LXX. The earliest patristic writers do not help much. The earliest copies have diffferent books. Please present any evidence and then I can do likewise to prove my point.

 

[BrianH]

Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger
Gary Michuta

“Finally the idea that the Jews possessed a canon identical to modern day Protestantism is entirely gratuitious; there is simply no contemporary evidence to support such a claim. For one thing, bibles were not bound together beteween covers…they existed as loose collections of scrolls stored in individual synagogues and the precise collection varied from place to place. Most students of the New Testament already know that the party of the Sadducess had the narrowest views in this regard, accepting only the Pentateuch as indisputably sacred. The borders were equally indistinct on the other end of the spectrum, with some Jewish groups willing to use a canon larger than that received by today’s Catholics. So, even if some Jewish listing from Paul’s era were to be discovered in the future, it would still represent only a canon-a canon of the Pharisees, a canon of the Essenes, and so forth -and never the Jewish canon, for no one at that time spoke for all Jews and the precise mix of scrolls in each synagogue varied widely.”

pages 13-14

I will only use Catholic sources in proving my point as well.
The next one if I need to type it will be from a Catholic historian.

 

[inkaneer]

This is not true in the least.

First, Jerome never accepted the dc’s as inspired and the Vulgate included prologues (written by Jerome) to each dc book which cast doubt upon their canonocity.

Jerome received his education from Jewish rabbi’s He was therefore instructed in the Hebrew scriptures. If someone told you that 1+1=4 you would believe it until someone else proved it was wrong. Same with Jerome on the “deuteros”. However, He and Augustine discussed the deuteros and Jerome was won over by what Augustine had to say. Here is what Jerome had to say about it

“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]).

And protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Second, even at the council of Trent we see that some of the council fathers rejected the inspiration of the dc’s.

There was debate at Trent just as there was debate at the Council of Jerusalem [Acts 15:7] But what was the outcome of that debate? In its decree the council named all 46 books in the OT and 27 in the NT then added this statement:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” THE FOURTH SESSION Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI. DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES]

There is a lot more to this issue but you can go to www. newadvent.org and search of “OT canon” and read the article there and you will clearly see that the dc’s had troube all along.

There was a "proto’ canon in the OT which were the writings universally accepted. There was a “deutero” canon which did not enjoy the total universality of the "proto’ books. But the article makes clear that the deuteros were not writings that a minority in the church viewed as inspired. Far from that. A very large majority viewed the “deuteros” as inspired. It just wasn’t as much as for the “proto” books. In addition your argument fails because there was both a “proto” and a “deutero” canon of the NT also. Origen divided books with Biblical claims into three classes: 1)•those universally received; 2)•those whose Apostolicity was questioned and 3)•apocryphal works. Eusebius did likewise although his list of “deutero” books differed a little from that of Origen. Both of them included the following: Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, II Peter, II and III John and Hebrews. The Catholic Church said all of them were inspired. Obviously protestants have accepted the decision of the Catholic Church that everyone of these NT deutero’s is inspired. And by accepting the Catholic Church’s decision protestants inherently accept that the Catholic Church had the authority to make that decision. Remember Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James as he did the OT deuteros but others stopped him. A sure rebuke of any authority that Luther may have claimed and a confirmation of the authority of the Catholic Church. So why the contradiction in protestantism on the OT “deuteros”? Maybe they are a little “too Catholic”?

 

[inkaneer]

You cannot prove this. The canon of the LXX at the time of Christ is not known. In fact the term canon is anachronistic as it relates to 1st century Judaism. We do not have any lists from that time that include these books in the LXX. The earliest patristic writers do not help much. The earliest copies have diffferent books. Please present any evidence and then I can do likewise to prove my point.

The Jews never had a closed canon until after Christ died. It is debated today when they actually closed their canon and indeed some will say it is not closed yet. I agree that the term “canon” is anarchronistic because the Old Testament reveals no formal idea of inspiration and our concept of canonicity is a modern idea. That being said, though the formal idea of canonicity was absent among the Jews the fact existed that they held some writings in very high esteem and others of lower esteem. Their concept was like that of the Temple where the Torah was the inner sanctuary, or Holy of Holies, while the Prophets were the Holy Place, and the Kéthubim only the outer court of the temple. But that was the Palestinian Jews or the Jews of Jerusalem. What about the Hellenistic Jews from whom we received the Septuagint? Their center was Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria was a center for learning and boasted of having the largest library in the world. Unfortunately that library and most of its contents burned. As a result the oldest copies of the Septuagint we have today dates only from the fourth and fifth centuries. HOWEVER, there is absolutely no evidence to prove or even to suggest that these copies are not accurate copies of the pre- christian Septuagint. As far as having different books that is not so. Only the book of Machabees is missing from the Codex Vaticanus all the other manuscripts contain all the deutero writings. Where the manuscript Septuagints differ from one another, with the exception noted of the Codex Vaticanus, it is in additional books beyond the deuterocanonical books.

As for the early church writers I disagree with your statement that they “do not help much”. On the contrary the writings which we have from the sub-Apostolic writers such as Clement, Polycarp, etc. contain implicit quotations from or allusions to the deuterocanonicals in the same manner as they do the protocanonical writings. Thus indicating that they were considered of equal value. Same is true of the next group of writers. In fact one of these, St. Justin Martyr who lived from about 100-165 AD, is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews’.

 

[BrianH]

=inkaneer;5931624] As far as having different books that is not so. Only the book of Machabees is missing from the Codex Vaticanus all the other manuscripts contain all the deutero writings. Where the manuscript Septuagints differ from one another, with the exception noted of the Codex Vaticanus, it is in additional books beyond the deuterocanonical books.

The two oldest are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Would you like to modify your statement that it contains “all” the deutero writings? Because Sinaiticus does not.
Next, additional writings speak to the fluid nature of the canon. We cannot say that those things they (oldest copies of the LXX) currently hold in common with your canon speak to the ancient and apostolic nature of it and those that do not…do not matter. Perhaps that is not what your intent was but additional books do matter.

As for the early church writers I disagree with your statement that they “do not help much”. On the contrary the writings which we have from the sub-Apostolic writers such as Clement, Polycarp, etc. contain implicit quotations from or allusions to the deuterocanonicals in the same manner as they do the protocanonical writings. Thus indicating that they were considered of equal value. Same is true of the next group of writers. In fact one of these, St. Justin Martyr who lived from about 100-165 AD, is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews’.

Lets specifically address Clement and its mention of Judith. Absolutely canonical and noncanonical writings make allusion to other books. That does not mean they are considered of equal value…does it?

Thanks for any clarification.