The 7 books

[Reformed1]

Okay…I’m confused.

Some of us seem to be equating the septuagint with the deuterocanonical books as if they are one in the same.

Also, somewhere in this thread someone must be arguing that the apostles and Jesus DID NOT quote from the septuagint either exclusively or at least primarily.

So do we all agree that the septuagint is what the NT’s old testament quotes are based on, at least the majority of them?

Do we agree that the septuagint included the OT books we all agree are canonical, the deuteros, and a few additional books that none of us accept as canonical?

 

[believers]

You are not Jesus’ oracle. If you had evidence that the earliest Christians accepted your canon, you would provide it. Your silence on this matter speaks louder than any words.

Anyway, I’m done with this line of discussion. The facts are clear. The earliest Christians accepted the Catholic canon, not the Protestant canon. This is indisputable. The case is truly closed on the matter. All you are left with is the charge that the earliest Christians got the canon wrong.

I have scriptural evidence that Jesus named the Old Testament canon. He’s the boss remember?

 

[believers]

Okay…I’m confused.

Some of us seem to be equating the septuagint with the deuterocanonical books as if they are one in the same.

Also, somewhere in this thread someone must be arguing that the apostles and Jesus DID NOT quote from the septuagint either exclusively or at least primarily.

So do we all agree that the septuagint is what the NT’s old testament quotes are based on, at least the majority of them?

Do we agree that the septuagint included the OT books we all agree are canonical, the deuteros, and a few additional books that none of us accept as canonical?

We’re discussing the Apocrypha.To sum up the discussion, I provided scriptural proof direct from the boss that the Jewish canon was set. However, absolutely no scriptural evidence has been provided regarding the Apocrypha by the Catholics aside from observations and statistics.

 

[lak611]

I have scriptural evidence that Jesus named the Old Testament canon. He’s the boss remember?

Show me a verse where Jesus named the Old Testament canon. You’ll search forever and won’t find it, because it does not exist. He never did name the canon.

 

[believers]

Show me a verse where Jesus named the Old Testament canon. You’ll search forever and won’t find it, because it does not exist. He never did name the canon.

That’s what you’d like to believe so you can say that your canon was THE canon set by YOUR religion. When in fact, Jesus did set the canon which makes your claim false.

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

The Jewish canon is separated in 3 categories

1. The Torah
2. The Prophets
3. The Psalms

Basically the same OT as the protestants just arranged differently.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

And like all other Catholics before you… you have no scriptural evidence to show for.

Believers:

Did Jesus say that he would base his Church on a Book or series of books? Or, Did Jesus say that he would base it on Peter?

That Scripture’s been discussed.

Did St. Paul call the Scriptures the foundation of all truth? or, did he call the “…CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD…the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15 NIV) “…The strong foundation of the truth.” (CEV) “…The pillar and support of the truth.” (NASB) “…The pillar and foundation of the truth.”??

I’m writing this letter so you’ll know how things ought to go in God’s household, this God-alive church, bastion of truth. 1 Tim 3:15 The Message

God used the leaders of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” (“Symbol” from the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople) to decide which books were to be included in the Canon of the New Testament, and which weren’t at the same time the doctrines of the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity of God were formalized.

It seems that you gladly accept the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’s decisions on the doctrines listed above, along with a whole host of doctines we haven’t discussed. Why can’t you bring yourself to consider that same Church’s decision on this one? And, Why are you substituting instead, that of a Council which Rejected and Cursed both Christ and all of those who follow him, including yourself and all of those you will see in your congregation on Sunday morning?

If all that Jesus gave us was a book, all we have to look forward to is more and more division as more and more Christians come up with new and novel ways to interpret different Bible Passages and then to divide over those different interpretations.

If that’s what Jesus wanted, why did He pray for us to all be ONE? (John 17:20-21)

If our Lord was serious about UNITY, don’t you think He would have built in a mechanism in the Church (like a combined continual Gift of Teaching and Prophecy given to men He designates publicly)? And, Don’t you think He would have given those men the ability and responsibility to make the decisions the Catholic Councils have had? And, Don’t you think He would have designated someone to head this whole thing up as a “Shepherd in Chief” until His Return in Glory - Someone responsible to him for the welfare of His sheep, and someone with the ability to direct the other “Shepherds” in protecting the Lord’s sheep?

This is all in Scripture and the Post-Apostolic and Early Church Fathers. If you’ve ever seen cowboys or shepherds at work, the above will make loads of sense, while what you’re maintaining will make none (leaving sheep among wolves to defend themselves with swords they can’t hold, let alone use).

And, God doesn’t do things that don’t make some sort of basic sense.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[believers]

Believers:

Did Jesus say that he would base his Church on a Book or series of books? Or, Did Jesus say that he would base it on Peter?

That Scripture’s been discussed.

Did St. Paul call the Scriptures the foundation of all truth? or, did he call the “…CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD…the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15 NIV) “…The strong foundation of the truth.” (CEV) “…The pillar and support of the truth.” (NASB) “…The pillar and foundation of the truth.”??

I’m writing this letter so you’ll know how things ought to go in God’s household, this God-alive church, bastion of truth. 1 Tim 3:15 The Message

God used the leaders of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” (“Symbol” from the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople) to decide which books were to be included in the Canon of the New Testament, and which weren’t at the same time the doctrines of the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity of God were formalized.

It seems that you gladly accept the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’s decisions on the doctrines listed above, along with a whole host of doctines we haven’t discussed. Why can’t you bring yourself to consider that same Church’s decision on this one? And, Why are you substituting instead, that of a Council which Rejected and Cursed both Christ and all of those who follow him, including yourself and all of those you will see in your congregation on Sunday morning?

If all that Jesus gave us was a book, all we have to look forward to is more and more division as more and more Christians come up with new and novel ways to interpret different Bible Passages and then to divide over those different interpretations.

If that’s what Jesus wanted, why did He pray for us to all be ONE? (John 17:20-21)

If our Lord was serious about UNITY, don’t you think He would have built in a mechanism in the Church (like a combined continual Gift of Teaching and Prophecy given to men He designates publicly)? And, Don’t you think He would have given those men the ability and responsibility to make the decisions the Catholic Councils have had? And, Don’t you think He would have designated someone to head this whole thing up as a “Shepherd in Chief” until His Return in Glory - Someone responsible to him for the welfare of His sheep, and someone with the ability to direct the other “Shepherds” in protecting the Lord’s sheep?

This is all in Scripture and the Post-Apostolic and Early Church Fathers. If you’ve ever seen cowboys or shepherds at work, the above will make loads of sense, while what you’re maintaining will make none (leaving sheep among wolves to defend themselves with swords they can’t hold, let alone use).

And, God doesn’t do things that don’t make some sort of basic sense.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

First, prove the Apocrypha is the Word of God. If you can’t do that, then it you would be very difficult to prove that your church is THE church.

The true church would never subscribe to false doctrine.

 

[VociMike]

The true church would never subscribe to false doctrine.

I agree. Show us where the true Church ever subscribed to the Protestant canon. It’s such a simple request.

 

[runandsew]

Protestants say that Jesus did not quote from the apocrypha books which includes 2 Maccabees, and that is one of the reasons that they do not believe that the apocrypha are inspired.

In 2 Maccabees Purgatory is taught, which Protestants reject.

Also in 2 Maccabees Hanukkah is established, and this is the feast in which Jesus and the Jews celebrated in John 10:22. So even thought Jesus did not quote from this book, He did celebrate a feast that was established in it, and which the Jews of today still celebrate.

I am not saying that this is proof that the book is inspired, I just find it kind of interesting that Jesus and the Jews would celebrate a feast from a book which they wouldn’t consider inspired from God.

Also it seems to me that Hanukkah is a feast which points towards Christ.
So this book would have something in it which does indeed point to Christ, contrary to some of the posts that I have read in this thread.

2 Maccabees 12:43–46 (teaching Purgatory)

He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

2 Maccabees 10:5-8 (teaching Hanukkah)

On the anniversary of the day on which the temple had been profaned by the Gentiles, that is, the twenty-fifth of the same month Chislev, the purification of the temple took place. The Jews celebrated joyfully for eight days as on the feast of Booths, remembering how, a little while before, they had spent the feast of Booths living like wild animals in caves on the mountains. Carrying rods entwined with leaves, green branches and palms, they sang hymns of grateful praise to him who had brought about the purification of his own Place. By public edict and decree they prescribed that the whole Jewish nation should celebrate these days every year.

John 10:22
The feast of the Dedication was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter.

Footnotes:
[22] Feast of the Dedication: an eight-day festival of lights (Hebrew, Hanukkah) held in December, three months after the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), to celebrate the Maccabees’ rededication of the altar and reconsecration of the temple in 164 B.C., after their desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 8:13; 9:27; cf 1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 1:18-2:19; 10:1-8).

Hanukkah is also known as the:
• Festival of Lights, since the flame in the Temple burned miraculously for eight days.
• Feast of Dedication, since the Temple was rededicated after being desecrated.

 

[Godfollower]

That’s what you’d like to believe so you can say that your canon was THE canon set by YOUR religion. When in fact, Jesus did set the canon which makes your claim false.

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

The Jewish canon is separated in 3 categories

1. The Torah
2. The Prophets
3. The Psalms

Basically the same OT as the protestants just arranged differently.

No, actually; Traditional Anglican already pointed out to you that you’re mistranslating:

TANACH - Torah (Instruction), Nevi’im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings - NOT “Psalms”). If you would accept just the “Psalms” instead of the “Writings”, you would be berefit of most of the OT you claim to accept.

And I pointed out to you that Jesus Himself quoted from Sirach in the Gospel of Luke. I also pointed out that some of the Old Testament that you accept (e.g., Nehemiah) is never quoted in the New Testament. So, when you say you’ve provided scriptural proof of your argument, you’re just wrong. What is your response to Traditional Anglican’s statement that you’re misquoting Scripture? What is your explanation for rejecting Sirach (which is quoted in the New Testament) but accepting Nehemiah (which isn’t)? And, since you seem so hung up on Paul’s comment about the Jews having “oracles,” where’s your scriptural evidence that the oracles omitted the Deuterocanonical works, given that (A) history proves you wrong; and (B) your “prophets, law, and psalms” argument is linguistically inaccurate?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

That’s what you’d like to believe so you can say that your canon was THE canon set by YOUR religion. When in fact, Jesus did set the canon which makes your claim false.

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

The Jewish canon is separated in 3 categories

1. The Torah
2. The Prophets
3. The Psalms

Basically the same OT as the protestants just arranged differently.

Believers:

I guess you must have missed my earlier post on this matter.

Jesus didn’t say “Psalms”, He said “WRITINGS” (Ketuvim).

At the time of Jesus, what we’ve charitably allowed to be called the Deuterocanon or Apocrypha was actually part of the Jewish Bible. In this case, I must assume that our charity has not facilitated communication - It has caused confusion instead.

“Deuterocanon” originally in the Writings (Ketivim) now accepted by Catholic Church:
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach

Books originally in the Prophets (Nevi’im) now accepted by the Catholic Church:
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch Chapter 6)
Azariah - The Song of the Three Young Men (Daniel 3:24-89
Susanna (Daniel 13)
Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14:3-28)

The Scrolls that Jesus read from when He read the Isaiah Scroll contained ALL of these, because the Jewish authorities at that time accepted them as Scriptural and useful for “…teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. (2 Tim 3:16b-17 NIV)

It wasn’t until the Council of Jamnia that they pulled those books and sections out from their proper places in the TANACH and stopped copying the Hebrew, Aramaic and Syrian texts.

I’m sorry that we allowed you to use the word Apocryph or that we allowed the word Deuterocanon, because neither the Jewish Rabbis nor the Pharrisees, nor the Early Church nor Jesus Himself considered them to be so. And, We have done them, and you, a disservice by allowing this usage.

Believers, you have pointed at with glee at the occasional ECF or (so you thought) Pope (It was actually St. Jerome who had the misgivings) about particular books among these we’ve been debating, while you seem to have been ignorant of the “knock-down-drag-out” the ECF’s and Councils actually did have about the Book of Revelation.

In spite of the fact of its indisputable Apostolic authorship, many authorities wanted to exclude it because they thought it was VEANGEFUL. If we applied your standard to the Book of Revelation, we would most certainly have to exclude it from the Canon of the New Testament.

Part of dialog is that we each listen to each other. Now, I know that I and others have said most of the above in other posts today and yesterday. It seems that every time I read your posts, you either don’t understand this, or you’re aren’t reading these posts.

I know it probably feels like a mob, but it’s not. so could you please not respond to this and other posts until you’re read them all the way through. I would really like to feel like I’m in the middle of a charitable dialog with a Christian borther, not a “Death-match” with a mortal enemy, and I’m sure you’d like to fel the same way.

I know how hard it is to believe that God could provide the Church with a source of Revelation other that the Book, or even a Church Teaching Authority to guide us through the book. Most of us in this group were there once.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[believers]

Believers:

I guess you must have missed my earlier post on this matter.

Jesus didn’t say “Psalms”, He said “WRITINGS” (Ketuvim).

At the time of Jesus, what we’ve charitably allowed to be called the Deuterocanon or Apocrypha was actually part of the Jewish Bible. In this case, I must assume that our charity has not facilitated communication - It has caused confusion instead.

“Deuterocanon” originally in the Writings (Ketivim) now accepted by Catholic Church:
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach

Books originally in the Prophets (Nevi’im) now accepted by the Catholic Church:
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch Chapter 6)
Azariah - The Song of the Three Young Men (Daniel 3:24-89
Susanna (Daniel 13)
Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14:3-28)

The Scrolls that Jesus read from when He read the Isaiah Scroll contained ALL of these, because the Jewish authorities at that time accepted them as Scriptural and useful for “…teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”. (2 Tim 3:16b-17 NIV)

It wasn’t until the Council of Jamnia that they pulled those books and sections out from their proper places in the TANACH and stopped copying the Hebrew, Aramaic and Syrian texts.

I’m sorry that we allowed you to use the word Apocryph or that we allowed the word Deuterocanon, because neither the Jewish Rabbis nor the Pharrisees, nor the Early Church nor Jesus Himself considered them to be so. And, We have done them, and you, a disservice by allowing this usage.

Believers, you have pointed at with glee at the occasional ECF or (so you thought) Pope (It was actually St. Jerome who had the misgivings) about particular books among these we’ve been debating, while you seem to have been ignorant of the “knock-down-drag-out” the ECF’s and Councils actually did have about the Book of Revelation.

In spite of the fact of its indisputable Apostolic authorship, many authorities wanted to exclude it because they thought it was VEANGEFUL. If we applied your standard to the Book of Revelation, we would most certainly have to exclude it from the Canon of the New Testament.

Part of dialog is that we each listen to each other. Now, I know that I and others have said most of the above in other posts today and yesterday. It seems that every time I read your posts, you either don’t understand this, or you’re aren’t reading these posts.

I know it probably feels like a mob, but it’s not. so could you please not respond to this and other posts until you’re read them all the way through. I would really like to feel like I’m in the middle of a charitable dialog with a Christian borther, not a “Death-match” with a mortal enemy, and I’m sure you’d like to fel the same way.

I know how hard it is to believe that God could provide the Church with a source of Revelation other that the Book, or even a Church Teaching Authority to guide us through the book. Most of us in this group were there once.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Jesus said Psalms. He did not say “writings”.

How do you explain the Greek word “psalmos” in Luke 24:44?

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

 

[RNRobert]

Jesus said Psalms. He did not say “writings”.

How do you explain the Greek word “psalmos” in Luke 24:44?

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

So, I guess by your definition, that the books of Proverbs, Job, Esther, Ezrea, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are not Scripture?

 

[believers]

No, actually; Traditional Anglican already pointed out to you that you’re mistranslating:

And I pointed out to you that Jesus Himself quoted from Sirach in the Gospel of Luke. I also pointed out that some of the Old Testament that you accept (e.g., Nehemiah) is never quoted in the New Testament. So, when you say you’ve provided scriptural proof of your argument, you’re just wrong. What is your response to Traditional Anglican’s statement that you’re misquoting Scripture? What is your explanation for rejecting Sirach (which is quoted in the New Testament) but accepting Nehemiah (which isn’t)? And, since you seem so hung up on Paul’s comment about the Jews having “oracles,” where’s your scriptural evidence that the oracles omitted the Deuterocanonical works, given that (A) history proves you wrong; and (B) your “prophets, law, and psalms” argument is linguistically inaccurate?

‘he said’ [2036] epo
‘unto them’ [846] autos
These [3778] houtos
‘[are] the words’ [3056] logos
which [3739] hos
‘I spake’ [2980] laleo
unto [4314] pros
you, [5209] humas
while [5607] on
‘I was yet’ [2089] eti
with [4862] sun
you, [5213] humin
that [3754] hoti
‘all things’ [3956] pas
must [1163] dei
‘be fulfilled’ [4137] pleroo
which [3588] ho
‘were written’ [1125] grapho
in [1722] en
‘the law’ [3551] nomos
‘of Moses’ [3475] Moseus
and [2532] kai
‘[in] the prophets’ [4396] prophetes
and [2532] kai
**’[in] the psalms’ [5568] psalmos **
concerning [4012] peri
me. [1700] emou

 

[believers]

So, I guess by your definition, that the books of Proverbs, Job, Esther, Ezrea, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are not Scripture?

They too are included in the Oracles of God committed to the Jews. They are grouped along with what the Jews have called Kethuvim (writings).

 

[Mannyfit75]

They too are included in the Oracles of God committed to the Jews. They are grouped along with what the Jews have called Kethuvim (writings).

Most of us take it for granted to have a copy of Bible and do not bother to know how we got it. The question how the list of Old Testament books was determined hardly comes to our mind, until some of our non-Catholic friends pointed to us the difference in number of books between our Old Testament and theirs. Catholic Old Testament is longer by seven books: Tobith, Judith, Baruch (with letter of Jeremiah), Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom and 1 and 2 Maccabees. It has also extra chapters and verses in Daniel and Esther. The total number of Catholic Old Testament books is 46 (or 45 if we combine Jeremiah and Lamentation) while that of Protestant is 39. Based on this difference, they may also accuse that Catholic Church added those seven books in sixteenth century at Council of Trent. Hence a knowledge of historical background of our Old Testament is necessary to really understand the matter.

During Jesus time, the Jews did not officially have a list of inspired books or canon. The word “canon” comes from Greek “kanon” meaning a measuring rod. The Hebrew speaking Jews in Palestine are generally known to use 24 books which they divided in three divisions: the Law (5 books of Moses or Pentateuch); the Prophets (4 former and 4 latter prophets) and the Writings (11 books). The Sadducees most likely did not accept Daniel as Dan 12:2 supports resurrection which they denied (Mark 12:18). Others like Samaritans accept only (their version of) Pentateuch as Scripture to this day. Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote (c. 90 CE) that Jews recognized 22 books, divided in three divisions: 5 books of Moses, 13 books of the Prophets and the remaining 4 books. Note the difference in the number of books in second and third divisions and since he did not name them one by one, one can only speculate whether they are condensed form of 24 Hebrew books or not. The Essenes at Qumran community, who lived at the same time with our Lord might not accept Esther. On the other hand Greek speaking Jews used a longer Scripture which is known as Septuagint. The word Septuagint means “seventy” which (according to legend) was the number of elders of Israel who did the translation into Greek at Alexandria, Egypt. It differs textually with Hebrew Bible and is divided into four divisions: the Law, Historical books, Poetical and Wisdom books and finally books of the Prophets. Compared to the Hebrew Bible, it has extra books which now exist in Catholic Old Testament. It is commonly believed that after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, the Jews under the leadership of Yohanan ben Zakkai decided at Jamnia (or Javneh) to adopt the Hebrew Scripture as their canon. Whether Jamnia council really happened is still under debate and even if it did, the Jewish Canon was not settled down in the first century. The encyclopedia of Judaism, page 117 says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint (minus Ecclesiasticus) to this day (Encyclopaedia of Religion, Vol. 2, page 174). In any case, Christians have no reason to accept Jewish canon declared after our Lord ascension.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Which Scripture known to Jesus, His followers and the first Christians? The answer is they knew both Hebrew Bible and Septuagint. Greek speaking Jews also lived in Palestine and known as Hellenists (Acts 6:1). However all New Testament writers mostly used Septuagint whenever they quoted from Old Testament. It is not a matter of convenience (both used Greek), because at few places they still quoted from Hebrew Bible (translated into Greek). As mentioned above, Septuagint has textual difference compared to Hebrew Bible. A good example is the famous prophecy about Jesus virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Hebrew Bible does not say “virgin” but “young woman” while the Septuagint does say “virgin” (note that both Hebrew and Greek have different words for virgin and young woman).

While the Jews might already decide their canon in the first century, the first Christians may and may not share the same view. Justin Martyr (c 160 CE) regarded Septuagint as Scripture and so did his counterparts Iranaeus and Tertullian. Tertullian also considered the book of Enoch (not part of Septuagint) as inspired. On the other hand Melito, bishop of Sardis (c 170 CE) recognized Hebrew Scriptures minus Esther. Origen (CE 185-254) list of Old Testament books comprises of Hebrew Bible but also includes Letter of Jeremiah from Septuagint. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in 367 gave the same list as Origen but he included Baruch and omitted Esther. He considered other extra books from Septuagint as having inferior grade. The list of Old Testament books given at Council of Laodicea (c 363) follows that of Athanasius with Esther put back again in the list. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem from 348 to 386 follows Origen list but included Baruch while Gregory of Nazianzus (c 330 - 390) followed that of Athanasius. Jerome (346 - 420) gave us the well known Latin translation of Bible known as Vulgate. He also had doubt on extra books from Septuagint but he included them in his Latin translation and referred them as apocrypha. On the other hand his younger contemporary, Augustine (CE 354 - 430) followed Septuagint and listed 44 books which agreed with today’s Catholic Old Testament of 46 books. The difference in total number is because he combined Lamentation and Baruch (with Letter of Jeremiah) with Jeremiah. In 382 Pope Damasus approved his list at Council of Rome. It was then declared at Church Council in Hippo (Augustine’s see) in 393 and subsequently reaffirmed at third Council of Carthage, a provincial council in 397. The fourth council of Carthage in 419 again confirmed the same list of Old Testament. The same councils also declared the canon of New Testament 27 books. In conclusion those 46 books of Catholic Old Testament (together with 27 books of New Testament) were declared in fourth century not in sixteenth century. Whilst it is a true fact that those 7 books were first disputed and came into canon at later state, the same also applies to Esther and to some New Testament books (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, James, Hebrews, Revelation). It is also a fact that the councils at Hippo and Carthage are not ecumenical councils, hence they did not speak for the whole church. This is shown by the difference of some of the manuscript of the Bible made in and after 4th century. Yet it also shows that the issue of canon of scripture is not an issue that divided Christianity which requires an ecumenical council.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The following are deuterocanonical books found in some of Bible manuscript made in and after 4th century. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) has Tobith, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach. While Codex Vaticanus (4th century) has Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah. Codex Alexandrinus has Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.

After about one thousand one hundred years, the issue of Christian canon of Bible re-appeared during Reformation in sixteenth century. Martin Luther in his German translation placed the seven books as appendix and did not considered them (following Jerome) equal to the other 39, but still useful and good to read. He also disliked Esther and also did not consider 4 books of New Testament (Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation) equal to the other 23. Most of Protestant Old Testament now excludes those 7 books, while some may have them inserted between Old and New Testaments. The majority of Protestants do not regard them as inspired and call them Apocrypha. Thus they consider only 39 books as inspired which agrees with 24 books of Hebrew Bible (the difference in number comes from different way of dividing books). As a response to Reformation, Catholic Church held an Ecumenical Council at Trent where one of the decision was reaffirming the canonicity of those 46 books. Those 7 disputed books now known to Catholics as deuterocanonical or latter canon books, while the other 39 are protocanonical or former canon books. For Catholics, the canon of Scripture was finalized in this (ecumenical) Trent council. No one, not even pope, can add or drop any book into or from the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The main reason why Protestants reject deuterocanonical (or apocryphal in their term) books is they support teachings peculiar to Catholic Church, like praying to the dead (2 Mac 12:45-46) and almsgiving for sin expiation (Tobit 12:9). Yet the majority of Jews who do not accept 2 Maccabees still pray to the their dead, a common practice even during Jesus time. Proverb 16:6 says (NIV) that “through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for” which is close to Tobit 12:9. Other common reason is Jesus and New Testament writers never quoted from them. True, but they too never quoted from Esther, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. It is also worth to note that Jesus words in John 7:38 quoted from Scripture cannot be found in any Old Testament books (ours or theirs) and so are James 4:5 and Matthew 2:23. Jude 9 and 14 quoted from two books which are not accepted as inspired, Ascension of Moses and Enoch (the latter is accepted by Ethiopian Church as inspired). Indirectly, there are quotations from some deuterocanonical books. For example, pagan immorality in Rom 1:18-32 echoes Wisdom 12-14, and the attitude of Jews criticized by Paul in Rom 2:1-11 has affinities with Wisdom 11-15. The writer of Hebrews might refer to 2 Mac 6:18 to 7:41 when he wrote about torture which some endured through faith (Heb 11:35-38). Thus the non-existence of quotation in New Testament is not the criteria to reject Deuterocanonical books.

In Luke 24:44 Jesus said that He fulfilled prophecies in the Law, the Prophets and Psalms. Does it show that He followed the Hebrew three divisions of Bible (Law, Prophets and Writings)? However Psalms is just one book of the third division which also (in Hebrew division) includes Daniel and this book does have prophecy about Him (Dan 7:13). It is unlikely Jesus forget this fact. Luke 24:44 might even indicate that Jesus placed Daniel as one book of the Prophets or in other word He followed Septuagint division. In other occasions, the Law represents not only 5 books of Moses but also Isaiah (1 Cor 14:21) and Psalms (Rom 3:10-19). It shows that Jesus and others did not follow three fold divisions of Hebrew Bible.

Other common argument is taken from Luke 11:50-51 where Jesus said (NIV): “Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary.” Since Abel is mentioned in the Genesis (Gen 4:8) and Zechariah in the 2 Chron 24:20-22, those two being the first and the last books according to Hebrew division, does it show that Jesus recognized the Hebrew Bible? However, parallel verse in Matthew 23:35 says that Zechariah was son of Barachiah, while Zechariah in 2 Chron 24:20-22 was son of Jehoiada, thus they are unlikely to be the same person. Protestant scholar, F.F. Bruce acknowledged this problem but still insisted that they are the same person.

Anti Catholic writer, Boettner wrote about the deuterocanonical books that none of the writers claim inspiration for their works, and some explicitly disclaim it. Yet the same also applies to most of books of the Bible. Most of them do not explicitly claim inspiration. He also pointed some historical errors like Nebuchadnezzar is called as king of Assyrians (Judith 1:1-7), while actually he is king of Babylon. In answer, the book is not historical book so Judith was not a historical character (her name means Jewess) and by combining Assyrians and Babylonians together, it represents the enemies of Israel (both kingdoms conquered Israel) and encourages the reader to rely on God’s way of deliverance, even through a unreliable way to human standard (i.e. through a woman).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Former Catholic, McCarthy wrote that the author of 2 Maccabees says that the book is the abridgment of another man’s work (2 Maccabees 2:23). Yet the third Gospel also claims the same, i.e. second hand information put in written form (Luke 1:1-4). He also claimed that no prophet lived in Palestine during the time Deuterocanonical books were written. However, nobody can prove that all books of the Bible were and must be written by prophets as God can inspire anybody. Protestant apologist, Josh Mc Dowell wrote in his best seller, Evidence that Demands Verdict Vol. 1, that books of Bible were written by various people, from king (David) to fisherman (Peter), from prophet (Ezekiel) to tax collector (Matthew), hence not all of them are prophets.

Former Catholic William Webster wrote that Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria and Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (in 4th century) did not include apocryphal books in their lists. In fact Athanasius did include Baruch and omitted Esther (cif Ref. 2 page 78-79), while Cyril also included Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah (ibid, page 80-81). Their lists neither agree with Catholic nor Protestant Old Testaments. He continued twisting the history by writing that the list given by Melito in 2nd agrees with Hebrew Bible, while in fact it did not have Esther (ibid, page 71). He made similar false claims about the list produced by Origen (which in fact included Letter of Jeremiah) and by Gregory of Nazianzen (which in fact omitted Esther). He cleverly did not list the name of those who accepted apocryphal books.