The Deuterocanonicals...again, I'm sure

[Janet_S]

Thanks for the responses so far! I haven’t checked out all the links yet, but I will pretty soon.

I had a quick question, though: Are the deuterocanonicals included in any Jewish-only (IE, not Christian) Bible? That is, are all the extant mss. Christian works?

According to this website:
[utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/kingp/books.of.the.canon.html](http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/kingp/books.of.the.canon.html)

All these books are accepted by Ethiopian Jews:
–Judith
–Tobit
–I & II Maccabees
–Wisdom
–Sirach
–Baruch

Also:

The book of Sirach is frequently cited in the Talmud.

Baruch was still read on Yom Kippur in some synagogues in Origen’s time (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.” vi. 25).

 

[Janet_S]

Only if you are also prepared to say that the issue of the canonicity of e.g. the Gospel of John wasn’t settled before Trent.

Either nothing was settled before Trent, or the entire Catholic canon was settled before Trent, take your pick. But there is no in-between where the Protestant canon was settled but not the Deuterocanonicals.

This is a very important point.

Those who argue against the Catholic OT canon must pick their argument and stick with it. Most will make two contradictory claims in their arguments. These 2 claims are: 1) Catholics added 7 OT books at the Council of Trent and 2) Catholics never decided the OT canon until the Council of Trent.

Note: look at the above two statements. They are claiming at the same time 1) Catholics added 7 books at Trent and 2) Catholics added 72 books (to something that never existed until Trent.)

You can’t argue for both points. They contradict each other.

 

[Jesusstreet]

Hi, all. This is my first post to this forum.

I’m an agnostic raised Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS). As you can imagine, I was indoctrinated into 66-book inerrancy. At age 23 or so (I’m 27, now), I lost my faith, drifted into agnosticism, and haven’t come back since.

Anyhoo, since I had been raised in a strong evangelical family (my brother is an LCMS ordained minister, for example), my disbelief didn’t fully deter my interest in Christian culture and history. Yet, I never really learned anything about Catholic doctrine. Generally speaking, I was warned that it was too legalistic, and focused on man-made tradition rather than Sola Scriptura (typical, yes?). But I never really looked into it for myself.

That is, until recently.

The problem is, all my Christian associations are evangelicals. I’ve never had much of any Orthodox or Catholic instruction. Consequently, I’m not up to snuff, so to speak, on issues like the deuterocanonicals.

I’ve made a thread in an evangelical forum about this same issue. I want to make a thread here, as well, in order to get a relatively balanced response.

So, I’m sure you’re all familiar with the typical Protestant objections. You know–no Hebrew originals, anachronisms, historical errors, no citations in the NT, all that. What are your responses? I can think of a few, already, which I am waiting to throw at the evangelicals. But I have to admit the historical and patristic support for the deuterocanonicals are a little bit weaker than the rest of the OT books–and that presents a real problem.

I would thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

That link Cranch gave written by Jason Evert is good.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

It seems to me the primary arguement that protestants use is to claim they are not “inspired” works that GOD was silent for a time therefore in this period there weren’t any “inspired” works written. That of course is a matter for the CHURCH to decide guided by the HOLY SPIRIT. It always strikes me how people with logs in their eye refuse to get rid of it before they try to remove the speck in another’s eye . …

In TRUTH i believe that the Catholic Church is united to the WORD OF GOD by partaking in the HOLY EUCHARIST. THE BODY OF CHRIST on Earth, the CHURCH, is then made part of CHRIST being HIS BODY united in THE TRUE VINE, thereby having a share of DIVINE LIFE with CHRIST THE LORD as our HEAD. JESUS being the HIGH PRIEST then makes the CHURCH a priest unto the nations, a light of TRUTH leading to CHRIST and LIFE EVERLASTING. Therefore the inerrancy of the CHURCH is due to CHRIST being our HEAD in the UNITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. That is the CHURCH is literally CHRIST in so much as the HOLY EUCHARIST is literally the BODY AND BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST so the CHURCH who partakes of this HEAVENLY MEAL is united to CHRIST THE WORD and becomes ONE BODY IN CHRIST in the unity of the HOLY SPIRIT. Where as JESUS is GOD and man in the hypostatic union of the DIVINE and the WORD made flesh so too the BODY OF CHRIST is a hypostatic union of the DIVINE GOD HEAD and the flesh of the congregation which have a single soul THE HOLY SPIRIT who dwells in us and brings us all to unity in the HOLY SPIRIT. This is the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST which is the HIGH PRIEST. Those standing outside the body if they deny this role of the CHURCH look to the words of the Bible seeking CHRIST therein and may become “blind guides”. But in seeking JESUS we should come and be part of the BODY OF CHRIST through THE HOLY EUCHARIST. To be a Practicing Catholic.

Therefore it is only THE HIGH PRIEST who can say which books are inspired and which are not. That is to say THE CHURCH or the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST. Anyone trying to reform CHRIST is asking GOD who was the same yesterday, today, and forever, to change HIS ways. GOD is perfect, and doesn’t need to be reformed, but fallible people need instead to reform their ways to CHRIST.

Read the duetorocanonical books as if they were every bit as inspired as the Canon of the Old Testament, because CHRIST has given them to us as the Bible in conjuction with the New Testament.

 

[Janet_S]

The issue wasn’t settled before Trent though, was it?

The OT and NT canons were solemnly declared at the Council of Trent in response to the questions raised during the Protestant Reformation, but this was a decision based on tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading.

The definitive decision at Trent reaffirmed the decisions of the ecumenical Council of Florence (AD 1438-1445) and the local Councils of Carthage (AD 397 & 419) and Hippo (AD 393).

 

[epostle]

Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are:—Genesis,
Exodus,
Leviticus,
Numbers,
Deuteronomy,
Joshua,
Judges,
Ruth,
the four books of Kings ,
the two books of Chronicles,
Job,
the Psalms of David,
the five books of Solomon ,
the twelve books of the Prophets , Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras ,
two books of the Maccabees.
The books of the New Testament are:—
the four Gospels,
the Acts of the Apostles,
thirteen Epistles of S. Paul,
one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews,
two Epistles of S. Peter,
three Epistles of S. John,
the Epistle of S. James,
the Epistle of S. Jude,
the Revelation of S. John.
Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church * shall be consulted.
Synod of Hippo, Canon 29, A.D. 393*.

web.archive.org/web/20040226202246/www.catholicoutlook.com/objbible1.html
This list of books was affirmed at the Council of Florence (1442).

The Council of Trent affirmed the same list by refering to the Council of Florence 104 years previous. Christianity must have continuity or it’s not Christianity. If the Church is guilty of “adding books”, then she is just as guilty for adding the 27 books of the New Testament.

Luther removed the seven books because they didn’t suit his opinions. One argument is that they were not written in Hebrew, and that is why they were excluded at the Jewish council of Jamnia. If that is the case, it makes no sense to grant authority to a Jewish council that was hostile to Christians and rejected the message of the New Testament, over and above the authority of the Church.

 

[Calvinator]

Only if you are also prepared to say that the issue of the canonicity of e.g. the Gospel of John wasn’t settled before Trent.

Either nothing was settled before Trent, or the entire Catholic canon was settled before Trent, take your pick. But there is no in-between where the Protestant canon was settled but not the Deuterocanonicals.

The fact is, your church didn’t “infallibly” declare the canon until Trent.

Before Trent you will find loyal Catholics rejecting in part or in whole the books you refer to as the deutero’s.

 

[hatsoff]

I didn’t read anything compelling.

Have you read this one yet?
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

M

No, I haven’t read that, but I’m familiar with the myth–which is why I was concerned that the second link in this thread treated it as true.

 

[VociMike]

The fact is, your church didn’t “infallibly” declare the canon until Trent.

Before Trent you will find loyal Catholics rejecting in part or in whole the books you refer to as the deutero’s.

“Loyal Catholics” are not authoritative sources. Councils and popes are. No council or pope ever put forth the Protestant canon. Not once. Not ever. But they did put forth, again and again, the Catholic canon.

 

[Calvinator]

“Loyal Catholics” are not authoritative sources. Councils and popes are. No council or pope ever put forth the Protestant canon. Not once. Not ever. But they did put forth, again and again, the Catholic canon.

Okay…when was the canon first “officially” defined?

Every catholic apologist I’ve ever heard confidently states that Trent was the first binding declaration of the canon. The other councils were apparently regional and not binding on the whole church.

 

[VociMike]

Okay…when was the canon first “officially” defined?

From the Catholic encyclopedia, here are the six earliest authoritative enumerations. All included the Deuterocanonicals.

Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent…The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.

Such unanimity of authoritative teaching makes the Catholic canon a matter of the Ordinary Magisterium for more than a thousand years before Trent.

 

[Calvinator]

From the Catholic encyclopedia, here are the six earliest authoritative enumerations. All included the Deuterocanonicals.

Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent…The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.

Such unanimity of authoritative teaching makes the Catholic canon a matter of the Ordinary Magisterium for more than a thousand years before Trent.

From www.newadvent.org on the OT canon

*
"THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacue, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.
The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint.

A. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON (INCLUDING THE DEUTEROS) IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Tridentine decrees (TRENT)* from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fedei. But this was not done by way of any formal decision; we should search the pages of the New Testament in vain for any trace of such action. The larger Canon of the Old Testament passed through the Apostles’ hands to the church tacitly, by way of their usage and whole attitude toward its components; an attitude which, for most of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, reveals itself in the New, and for the rest, must have exhibited itself in oral utterances, or at least in tacit approval of the special reverence of the faithful. Reasoning backward from the status in which we find the deutero books in the earliest ages of post-Apostolic Christianity, we rightly affirm that such a status points of Apostolic sanction, which in turn must have rested on revelation either by Christ or the Holy Spirit. For the deuterocanonicals at least, we needs must have recourse to this legitimate prescriptive argument, owing to the complexity and inadequacy of the New Testament data."

The earlier councils you refer to did not settle the issue of the canon for the universal church and history seems to bear this fact out. From the time of the earliest council that you can claim as settling the issue of the canon we will see men such as Augustine and Pope Gregory as well as others seemingly oblivious to such a claim. I will post more on this later.

 

[VociMike]

The earlier councils you refer to did not settle the issue of the canon for the universal church and history seems to bear this fact out. From the time of the earliest council that you can claim as settling the issue of the canon we will see men such as Augustine and Pope Gregory as well as others seemingly oblivious to such a claim. I will post more on this later.

Like I said, you can either claim that the earlier, unanimous teachings settled the canon, or you can claim that the canon was not settled until Trent. Take your pick.

But what you cannot claim is that the Catholic Church at any time settled on the Protestant canon. That never happened. Not at any council. Not by any papal decree. There is no way to claim that the Church “added” books to some earlier settled (and Protestant) canon. That is the crucial fact.

Whenever the Church spoke on the canon with any degree of authority (the dogmatic authority of Trent, or the lesser authority of the councils and documents I listed), it specified the Catholic canon.

 

[Calvinator]

Like I said, you can either claim that the earlier, unanimous teachings settled the canon, or you can claim that the canon was not settled until Trent. Take your pick.

But what you cannot claim is that the Catholic Church settled on the Protestant canon. That never happened. Not at any council. Not by any papal decree. There is no way to claim that the Church “added” books to some earlier settled (and Protestant) canon. That is the crucial fact.

Whenever the Church spoke on the canon with any degree of authority (the dogmatic authority of Trent, or the lesser authority of the councils and documents I listed), it specified the Catholic canon.

I never said that the Catholic Church settled on the Protestant canon. My point is that the issue wasn’t resolved for the “universal” church until Trent.

As far as whether your church “added” the books, it depends on what you mean by added. I don’t believe they (the ones you call deutero’s) are canonical so yes, I believe your church added the books to the canon.

 

[VociMike]

I never said that the Catholic Church settled on the Protestant canon. My point is that the issue wasn’t resolved for the “universal” church until Trent.

No, you didn’t say it, at least not directly. But anybody who claims that the Church added books to the (Protestant) canon is implying that the Church had at some point settled on that (Protestant) canon. Since the Church never, ever settled on that (Protestant) canon, it simply has no meaning to say that the Church added books to that canon.

Claim that the Church has (always) gotten the OT canon wrong if you want. But don’t claim that the Church added books to the canon.

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

Greetings!

This is one of my favorite subjects, though I still have a lot to learn about the subject. Since others were dropping different links, I’d like to offer a blog entry I wrote responding to certain common objections on the Deuterocanonicals:

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=125682309&blogID=240765838

I started reading this thread this morning (i.e. Sunday morning), and I was filled with disappointment when I realized that I missed the Journey Home episode with Gary Michuta not once, but twice this week! For anyone else who wish they could have seen that, you can at least listen to the audio file online here:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289

Now, again, I am somewhat of a novice on this issue (but it does interest me!), but here I would like to pose a question to Calvinator (and anyone else who rejects the Deuterocanonicals). It is the question I always bring up when discussing this issue with Protestants, because I realize they don’t consider the Catholic Church as having the authority or power to say what is or is not canonical. So, then, the question is: how do you determine what is in the canon?

I ask because, and perhaps this isn’t fair, I assume the Protestants have no objective method for determing what is and is not canonical, save for tacitly assuming the canon chosen by Luther (or Protestants collectively). I mean no disrespect, but I think this is a very important issue.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

NewAbdalMaseeh:

…So, then, the question is: how do you determine what is in the canon?

Welcome to CAF Abdal! As for method among Protestants, take a look at this latest kefuffle:

reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/08/07/my-favorite-passage-that%e2%80%99s-not-in-the-bible/

 

[Janet_S]

I never said that the Catholic Church settled on the Protestant canon. My point is that the issue wasn’t resolved for the “universal” church until Trent.

As far as whether your church “added” the books, it depends on what you mean by added. I don’t believe they (the ones you call deutero’s) are canonical so yes, I believe your church added the books to the canon.

So we never had a canon until Trent, yet we changed it then?

How can this be?

Sounds like the usual flip flop argument we always hear.

 

[Janet_S]

The earlier councils you refer to did not settle the issue of the canon for the universal church and history seems to bear this fact out. From the time of the earliest council that you can claim as settling the issue of the canon we will see men such as Augustine and Pope Gregory as well as others seemingly oblivious to such a claim. I will post more on this later.

Read Gary Michuta’s book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger.

The Deuteros are inspired and therefore canonical because they are part of the books that were handed on by Christ’s apostles to the Church to be read in the liturgy as Sacred Scripture. Whenever there was a dispute, the Church re-affirmed the original canon (Councils of Hippo, Carthage, Florence, and finally, infallibly at Trent). Christians from the Apostolic Fathers to Jerome (with the possible exception of Julius Africanus) accepted the Deuteros as inspired Scripture. Jerome did reject them as inspired, but the Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that Jerome’s rationale for rejecting the books was false. Some of the Fathers quote Jerome’s rejection of the books yet still consider these 7 books as inspired. This includes Pope Gregory.

Gary Michuta presents overwhelming evidence in his book that the rejection of the Deuteros is a minority opinion started by Jerome.

Furthermore, Bibles before Trent (the Gutenberg Bible for one) include these 7 books in the OT canon. So claiming the CC added these books after Trent is ludicrous.

 

[Calvinator]

Furthermore, Bibles before Trent (the Gutenberg Bible for one) include these 7 books in the OT canon. So claiming the CC added these books after Trent is ludicrous.

If one doesn’t accept the books you refer to as the deutero-canonicals as being inspired, how else would they term the Catholic Church’s acceptance of the books?

 

[Calvinator]

Read Gary Michuta’s book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger.

The Deuteros are inspired and therefore canonical because they are part of the books that were handed on by Christ’s apostles to the Church to be read in the liturgy as Sacred Scripture. Whenever there was a dispute, the Church re-affirmed the original canon (Councils of Hippo, Carthage, Florence, and finally, infallibly at Trent). Christians from the Apostolic Fathers to Jerome (with the possible exception of Julius Africanus) accepted the Deuteros as inspired Scripture. Jerome did reject them as inspired, but the Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that Jerome’s rationale for rejecting the books was false. Some of the Fathers quote Jerome’s rejection of the books yet still consider these 7 books as inspired. This includes Pope Gregory.

Gary Michuta presents overwhelming evidence in his book that the rejection of the Deuteros is a minority opinion started by Jerome.

Furthermore, Bibles before Trent (the Gutenberg Bible for one) include these 7 books in the OT canon. So claiming the CC added these books after Trent is ludicrous.

Couple of questions…
a.) How do you know the apostles handed the books you call the deutero’s on to the church?

b.) How do we know Pope Gregory the Great accepted all the deutero’s?

c.) Christians from the Apostolic Fathers to Jerome (with the possible exception of Julius Africanus) accepted the Deuteros as inspired Scripture. Are you saying that there was absolute unity on the acceptance of the deutero’s (Julius Africanus accepted)?

d.) What about after Jerom? Was there unity still?