Questions about the deuterocanonical books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chero23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chero23

Guest
So as I have stated before my gf and I are reading the Bible. My Bible has the 7 books which Protestants don’t have. These books are placed right after Malachi and right before Matthew.

I told my gf that we would read the books although here church (She is Seventh Day Adventist) does not read those books.

Were some 200 pages before getting there, by this time next month we should be getting to the 7 Deuterocanonical books. I want to know several things.
  1. I heard and saw on YouTube, on 1 of the Catholic Answers Live shows, that the Gutenberg Bible which was done 100 years before the Protestant Reformation, the Bible had the 7 books which are contested. Does anybody know a link that states this. I have put on Google search the books that the Gutenberg Bible had but have not been able to see it.
  2. I read somewhere that Pope Damasus did canonize those books.
I know Protestants that those books are not “Scriptural” bc Jesus and the apostles did not quote them, but in scripturecatholic, Mr. Salza has at east some 40 verses that were quoted in the NT.

Any help would be truly appreciated guys.
 
Protestants don’t consider the books to be divinely inspired, neither do the Jews coincidently ] or Jerome who resisted there inclusion. It was he who titled them the “Apocrypha” meaning doubtful authenticity. Epiphanius said the books of Wisdom of Solomon & book of Sirach were “useful” but not divine, he said the rest were heretical. Most Protestants believe that they were officially canonised in the 14th century to support church teaching such as purgatory and redemption of souls after death, invocation and intercession of saints, praying to angels etc. You can get Protestant bibles with these extra books, the only difference being that the catholic versions call them Deutrocanocal [second canon] signifying the belief that they are divinely inspired, and the Protestant title and also up until 1540’s Catholic also, Apocrypha. I believe the books are useful but as a big Jerome aficionado, I regard their “divinely inspired” provenance as doubtful. .
 
TheBurningBush said:
Protestants don’t consider the books to be divinely inspired, neither do the Jews coincidently ] or Jerome who resisted there inclusion. It was he who titled them the “Apocrypha” meaning doubtful authenticity. Epiphanius said the books of Wisdom of Solomon & book of Sirach were “useful” but not divine, he said the rest were heretical. Most Protestants believe that they were officially canonised in the 14th century to support church teaching such as purgatory and redemption of souls after death, invocation and intercession of saints, praying to angels etc. You can get Protestant bibles with these extra books, the only difference being that the catholic versions call them Deutrocanocal [second canon] signifying the belief that they are divinely inspired, and the Protestant title and also up until 1540’s Catholic also, Apocrypha. I believe the books are useful but as a big Jerome aficionado, I regard their “divinely inspired” provenance as doubtful. .
Click to expand...
Well…in citing Jerome…it looks like protestants stop at saying Jerome had contrary opinions on the DC books…but forget to mention that he later submitted to the Church and considered it somewhat sinful to continue doing so.

So you do feel the same as Jerome…sinful if you continue with your views as them being doubtful?

Would also accept the fact that your view is the minority view and against the view of the Church?

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html

If you’ve ever discussed the reasons for their rejection with someone knowledgable enough to have a reason, there tend to be two common points brought up:
(1) the Jews don’t consider these books canonical (by which, they mean modern Jews), and

(2) Jerome rejected them.

The first point is pretty weak. The Jews up to the latter half of the first century A.D., past the time of Christ, had no settled canon. And the Church has fulfilled the mantle of Israel, as the Old Testament repeatedly prophesied. While the Jews still have a particular role in God’s plan of salvation, that role doesn’t include setting the canon for Christian Bibles.

The second point takes various forms. Sometimes, they’ll cut right to Jerome, while othertimes, the argument will be presented as if the speaker knows of someone prominent Church Father besides Jerome who felt this way. Occassionally, you’ll even hear that “the early Church” rejected these books, but that’s just untrue. In fact, if you read what Jerome actually says on the subject, you’ll quickly realize that he acknowledged his own view as (a) the minority view, (b) opposed to the Church’s view, and (c) possibly wrong, even sinfully so. The best evidence for this comes in his book Against Rufinus.
 
TheBurningBush said:
Protestants don’t consider the books to be divinely inspired,
Click to expand...
Odd then that King James made it illegal to publish a Bible w/o them under penalty of prison…and that they remained in n-C Bibles until the mid 1800s when they were removed and a cost cutting measure by some Bible society.
neither do the Jews coincidently ]
Click to expand...
Better check again. If you intend to refer to the so called Council of Jamnia, your case will fail since there was no such actual council with any authority to decide any such thing. Steve Ray has written on this.
or Jerome who resisted there inclusion.
Click to expand...
Although this is true it is a moot point because his complaint was that he could find no copies of the DCs in Hebrew, but they were indeed found in with the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s. so that argument is unfounded.
It was he who titled them the “Apocrypha” meaning doubtful authenticity.
Click to expand...
It actually means “hidden” and it has nothing to do with authenticity, besides we are talking about the Deuterocanonical books. The Apocryphal works are Gnostic writings and other such that were never considered inspired.
Epiphanius said the books of Wisdom of Solomon & book of Sirach were “useful” but not divine, he said the rest were heretical.
Click to expand...
You choose to cite him for this when you reject all the other things that he taught. Moreover, the fact is that he did encourage the inclusion of these books in the Bible.
Most Protestants believe that they were officially canonised in the 14th century to support church teaching such as purgatory and redemption of souls after death, invocation and intercession of saints, praying to angels etc.
Click to expand...
Inaccurate. They were defined by the Council of Trent in response to attacks on the canon by errant Protestants.
You can get Protestant bibles with these extra books, the only difference being that the catholic versions call them Deutrocanocal [second canon] signifying the belief that they are divinely inspired, and the Protestant title and also up until 1540’s Catholic also, Apocrypha. I believe the books are useful but as a big Jerome aficionado, I regard their “divinely inspired” provenance as doubtful.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you they are not “extra” as they were included in every early discussion of inspired Old Testament writings as is shown by the ECF citations in the following article. The Old Testament Canon

If you’re a fan of St. Jerome, then you have already seen that his misgivings were made moot by later discoveries, and you would do well to consider his own comments about their inclusion. in which he states.
“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]).
Click to expand...
 
capablanca911 said:
Perhaps you would be better served following Jerome’s submission to the ecclesial hierarchy?

taylormarshall.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html

Or you can keep Jerome’s earlier position. That’s cool too I guess. Not very Protestant. But cool.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/09/does-saint-jerome-endorse-protestant.html
Click to expand...
Hi capablanca, If Jerome, Damascus or any other church luminary had considered the books [in question] divinely inspired why for 1500 years did they call them “Apocraphal”. The quotes in the above links are tenuous in the extreme and predate the first edition vulgate which omitted the books in there entirety, an edition which Damascus called “the definitive version” !
 
pablope said:
Well…in citing Jerome…it looks like protestants stop at saying Jerome had contrary opinions on the DC books…but forget to mention that he later submitted to the Church and considered it somewhat sinful to continue doing so.

Pain of death is a very good way of changing a persons opinion!

So you do feel the same as Jerome…sinful if you continue with your views as them being doubtful?

**Would also accept the fact that your view is the minority view and against the view of the Church?
**
Thr jews [a minority group] the people who wrote them knew they were not divinely inspired and considered them as historical writings, Jerome was an expert on Hebrew, not just the language, but the people and their whole way of life and culture fully understood what these books were. Also its only been against the view of the church for 500 years, or were they in error for 1500 years?

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html

If you’ve ever discussed the reasons for their rejection with someone knowledgable enough to have a reason, there tend to be two common points brought up:
(1) the Jews don’t consider these books canonical (by which, they mean modern Jews), and

(2) Jerome rejected them.

The first point is pretty weak. The Jews up to the latter half of the first century A.D., past the time of Christ, had no settled canon. And the Church has fulfilled the mantle of Israel, as the Old Testament repeatedly prophesied. While the Jews still have a particular role in God’s plan of salvation, that role doesn’t include setting the canon for Christian Bibles.

The second point takes various forms. Sometimes, they’ll cut right to Jerome, while othertimes, the argument will be presented as if the speaker knows of someone prominent Church Father besides Jerome who felt this way. Occassionally, you’ll even hear that “the early Church” rejected these books, but that’s just untrue. In fact, if you read what Jerome actually says on the subject, you’ll quickly realize that he acknowledged his own view as (a) the minority view, (b) opposed to the Church’s view, and (c) possibly wrong, even sinfully so. The best evidence for this comes in his book Against Rufinus.
Click to expand...
 
TheBurningBush said:
Hi capablanca, If Jerome, Damascus or any other church luminary had considered the books [in question] divinely inspired why for 1500 years did they call them “Apocraphal”. The quotes in the above links are tenuous in the extreme and predate the first edition vulgate which omitted the books in there entirety, an edition which Damascus called “the definitive version” !
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure that my post above shows the error in yours.

You can believe that if you want to, but the preponderance of historical facts says otherwise.
 
TheBurningBush said:
Hi capablanca, If Jerome, Damascus or any other church luminary had considered the books [in question] divinely inspired why for 1500 years did they call them “Apocraphal”. The quotes in the above links are tenuous in the extreme and predate the first edition vulgate which omitted the books in there entirety, an edition which Damascus called “the definitive version” !
Click to expand...
You are making some factual errors here. You are making an assumption that Damasus had a 66 book canon, only to have Gelasius add 7 books to it later.

There’s nothing that I can find to give that theory any merit (if that’s not your theory–seeing how I’m reading between the lines here in what you wrote and common Prot argument–feel free to correct me).

There is no extant evidence to indicate that the canon of the council of Rome, or the Decree of Damasus, or the Council of Carthage (whose records are extant, and exactly match Trent’s canon a thousand years later!) differ.

And if the books were added by Catholics in 1500’s, when did they end up in the Orthodox canon???

Here’s my challenge to you Sir: **FIND ONE INSTANCE IN HISTORY WHERE WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE EXACT–EXACT!–66 BOOK MODERN PROT CANON WAS USED.**Should be an easy challenge, no?
 
The canon of scripture, the one we have today with 73 books was first proposed by Bishop Athanasius in about 348 AD. The same books were inclyded in the canon developed at the synods of Rome Hippo and Carthage and was referred to in a response from Pope Innocent I to a bishop in France. The 73 book canon was Jerome’s Vulgate of 400 AD. From 400 AD to the 16th century there was only one canon and that was the 73 book canon of the Vulgate. Martin Luther could not resolve his theology with certain of the books and thus eliminated them. These were the Deuterocanonical books although that is not why they were called deuterocanonical. The word means second canon to distinguish them from the protocanon or first canon. The distinction is not to be confused with any addition onto the protocanon but rather the protocanon was universally accepted by the Jews while the deutero books were accepted by some but not by others. This,of course applies only to the OT books. There is a corresponding proto canon and deutero canon in the NT also.

So the Catholic church did not add any books to the bible it was the protestants who removed them. One more thing. The Bible was codified, not as some sort of Christian study guide as protestants use it. Rather the codification was for liturgical use. It was to have all the readings for use at Mass in one book. Recall that the need for the canon was to combat Gnosticism with its false writings such as the Gospel of Thomas and all the other so called “Lost Books of the Bible” as the History Channel calls them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top