The Deuterocanonicals...again, I'm sure

  • Thread starter Thread starter hatsoff
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2.) I don’t think there was any debate around the canonocity of books such as Esther and the Song of Songs. Note that this isn’t a statement of a fact and I am open to correction on this if I am wrong.
Luther questioned the canonicity of the entire book of Esther–both its Hebrew and Greek parts. He never took it out of his OT canon, though.

There was debate about the canonicity of the book of Esther among members of the Church. Some of the early Christians–Melito (AD 180), Athanasius (AD, and Junilius (6th century)–excluded Esther from their canonical lists. The Catholic Encyclopedia, though, states that these omissions were accidental and unimportant:
The Book of Esther, thus taken in part from the Hebrew Canon and in part from the Septuagint, found a place in the Christian Canon of the Old Testament. The chapters taken from the Septuagint were considered deuterocanonical, and, after St. Jerome, were separated from the ten chapters taken from the Hebrew which were called protocanonical. A great many of the early Fathers clearly considered the entire work as inspired, although no one among them found it to his purpose to write a commentary on it. Its omission in some of the early catalogues of the Scriptures was accidental or unimportant. The first to reject the book was Luther, who declared that he so hated it that he wished that it did not exist (Table Talk, 59). His first followers wished only to reject the deuterocanonical parts, whereupon these, as well as other deuterocanonical parts of the Scriptures, were declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. IV, de Can. Scripturæ) to be canonical and inspired. With the rise of rationalism the opinion of Luther found many supporters. When modern rationalists argue that the Book of Esther is irreligious in character, unlike the other books of the Old Testament, and therefore to be rejected, they have in mind only the first or protocanonical part, not the entire book, which is manifestly religious. But, although the first part is not explicitly religious, it contains nothing unworthy of a place in the Sacred Scriptures. And any way, as Driver points out (Introduc. to the Lit. of the Testament), there is no reason why every part of the Biblical record should show the “same degree of subordination of human interests to the spirit of God”.
This is another article about the OT canon from a Greek Orthodox perspective.
users.auth.gr/~mkon/S065.doc

According to this article, Athanasius lists Esther as non-canonical.

Of course, you’re probably aware the Catholic canon of Scripture contains more chapters to the book of Esther than the Protestant canon. We include both the Greek and Hebrew chapters; Protestants include only the Hebrew.
 
Even if a book of the NT has a quotation in it that says “thus saith the Lord” refering to an OT book, we still would have to be sure of the particular NT books status as inspirational that had the quote in it. . .
I am interested in hearing everyone’s responses to these issues and comments and as always, welcome a friendly and lively debate from all. Thank you, in advance, for allowing me to voice my beliefs and for reading this post.
May God bless you and Mary keep you.
Great post Yin. (Are you sure you’re not already Catholic?) Hope things are going well for you in RCIA.

You bring up a good point. If one decides to use the NT to discern the OT canon, he must ask himself the important question of how he got his NT. Some people would rather not ask.

I hope to see more of you on the forum.

MGBYAMKY
 
I’m throwing out something as conjecture because I can’t prove it. I read somewhere that some of the OT books were left out of the Jewish cannon around (100 A.D.) because Christians were successfully using them to convert large numbers of Jews to Christianity.
Like i said before this is only speculation as far as I can tell.
 
I don’t know how to do links so I cut and pasted. You can find this at JewishEncylopedia.com. :

The Septuagint.

The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that called “The Septuagint” (“Interpretatio septuaginta virorum” or “seniorum”). It is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria; not of classic Greek, nor even of the Hellenistic style affected by Alexandrian writers. If the account given by Aristeas be true, some traces of Palestinian influence should be found; but a study of the Egyptian papyri, which are abundant for this particular period, is said by both Mahaffy and Deissmann to show a very close similarity between the language they represent and that of the Septuagint, not to mention the Egyptian words already recognized by both Hody and Eichhorn. These papyri have in a measure reinstated Aristeas (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars. Upon his “Letter to Philocrates” the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests. It is now believed that even though he may have been mistaken in some points, his facts in general are worthy of credence (Abrahams, in “Jew. Quart. Rev.” xiv. 321). According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria. Grätz (“Gesch. der Juden,” 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C.). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life.

It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather’s work, speaks of the “Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books” as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era (Swete, “An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek,” ch. i.). The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen. This will also explain in a measure the undoubted influence of the Septuagint upon the Syriac translation called the “Peshiṭta.”

Being a composite work, the translation varies in the different books. In the Pentateuch, naturally, it adheres most closely to the original; in Job it varies therefrom most widely. In some books (e.g., Daniel) the influence of the Jewish Midrash is more apparent than in others. Where it is literal it is “intolerable as a literary work” (Swete, ib. p. 22). The translation, which shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage, was evidently made from a codex which differed widely in places from the text crystallized by the Masorah. Its influence upon the Greek-speaking Jews must have been great. In course of time it came to be the canonical Greek Bible, as Luther’s translation became the German, and the Authorized Version the English. It is the version used by the Jewish Hellenistic writers, Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artabanus, Aristeas, Ezekiel, and Aristobulus, as well as in the Book of Wisdom, the translation of Ben Sira, and the Jewish Sibyllines. Hornemann, Siegfried, and Ryle have shown that Philo bases his citations from the Bible on the Septuagint Version, though he has no scruple about modifying them or citing them with much freedom. Josephus follows this translation closely (Freudenthal, “Hellenistische Studien,” ii. 171; Siegfried, in Stade’s “Zeitschrift,” iii. 32). It became part of the Bible of the Christian Church.

continued…
 
…continued

Aquila.

Two things, however, rendered the Septuagint unwelcome in the long run to the Jews. Its divergence from the accepted text (afterward called the Masoretic) was too evident; and it therefore could not serve as a basis for theological discussion or for homiletic interpretation. This distrust was accentuated by the fact that it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith. A revision in the sense of the canonical Jewish text was necessary. This revision was made by a proselyte, Aquila, who lived during the reign of Hadrian (117-138). He is reported to have been a pupil of R. Akiba and to have embodied in his revision the principles of the strictest literal interpretation of the text; certainly his translation is pedantic, and its Greek is uncouth. It strove only to reproduce the text word for word, and for this reason it grew rapidly in favor in strictly Jewish circles where Hebrew was yet understood. Not only in the days of Origen was it thus popular, but, according to the testimony of Jerome and Augustine, down to the fourth and fifth centuries. Of this translation a few fragments have come down to us, together with many citations made by Christian writers from Origen’s Hexapla. In the middle ofthe sixth century a certain section of the Jews in Byzantium wished to read the Sabbath lections in Greek as well as in Hebrew; but the Rabbis and authorities desired that only Hebrew should be read. The discussion came before the emperor, Justinian, who in the year 553 issued a novella in which it was expressly stated that “the Hebrews are allowed to read the Holy Writ in their synagogues in the Greek language”; and the emperor advised them to use either the Septuagint or the version of Aquila (Grätz, “Gesch. der Juden,” v. 435).

Of interest to this thread is how convienient this widely used scripture translation was used only until Christianity began to spread. Then it became a problem. It was then convienently “edited”. So protestants side with the Christ combating Jews of the time…interesting.
 
One thing I find interesting is the arguement against Trent and the late declaration upon the “Canon”…this arguement fails to recognize the purpose for Trent…

In fact it was the attack upon the long held and continuously identified [listed books] canonical scriptures by the Protestant Reformers that was the impetus for Trent! Trent was less a council that identified which books were, in fact, Canonical; Trent was the council that "affirmed" the long held [and historical] list of the Canon and then decleared that the Canon was “closed”.

By declering the Canon closed and fixed upon the historical rendering, the Church was preventing the ‘tinkering’ with Cacon that had been occurring as part of the reformation agenda.

It is a fact that the orifginal tinkering involved much nore than the Duetero - Canonicals…1 Timothy and Revelation being two books that Luther would have eliminated [and minimally de-canonized and removed to an appendix]. Cooler heads prevailed [Calvin, etc].

And how do we know what was handed on by the Apostles…you can argue that point but the historical [and authoriative] writings list a ‘catholic’ scripture canon…No writing list the “Luther” version…silence cannot sway more than the many [and early councils].

And many tenets of faith were not settled until a challenge arose…The Divinity of Jesus, the Trinity and Scripture. Luther was following behind the Gnostics, and Arians [and others]. When a tenet of the Christian faith is challenged the Church responds with a look at the historical record, the constant practice [Tradition and Belief] of the Christian community…then they make a decision…careful, thoughful and faithful…

That is what Trent was all about…not adding books in a vacuum
 
It is a fact that the orifginal tinkering involved much nore than the Duetero - Canonicals…1 Timothy and Revelation being two books that Luther would have eliminated [and minimally de-canonized and removed to an appendix]. Cooler heads prevailed [Calvin, etc].
In Luther’s 1522 edition of the NT, he placed 4 NT books (James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation) outside the NT canon.

He categorized these NT books as “inferior,” the same way he did the 7 deuteros in the OT. He set them apart from the rest of sacred Scripture and placed them at the end of his NT. He criticized them in his prefaces because they contradicted his theology.
 
Janet,

Thanks for the complete list of books; I did not have it hany when I posted…

I was just making the point that the Council of Trent was not about determining the “Canon”. The Council’s purpose was to determine what the historical [traditional] canon was [A look back at all of the preceding councils and listings of the books through the centuries. What was the deposit of faith…what books had traditionally, authentically and authoritatively been included in the **Canon of the Church.

The answer of course is the compilation that is still authentically “Universal” [as in Catholic] today…

The Reformers had questioned the Canon and began to play with it [removing books and adding words and also re-interpreting the meanings of passages] The Church answered by "officially declaring what the canon was [historically] and then “closing” the issue…nothing will be added - nothing will be taken away…

From Websters:
1 a : a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council b : a provision of canon law
2 [Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin, from Latin, model] : the most solemn and unvarying part of the Mass including the consecration of the bread and wine
3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works** <the canon of great literature>
4 a : an accepted principle or rule b : a criterion or standard of judgment c : a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms
Bolding is mine. It is for the Church to decide what body of principles, rules, standards and norms speaks for the church. The Scriptures embody the basic core tenets of the faith…not all of the faith handed on but the most important writings. The Church accepts …not some lone rogue priest [or even a group loosely formed like the Reformers] and not the break way factions who lobby for an unhistorical collection of books…
 
Here are some of Luther’s quotes about the 4 NT books he didn’t accept as canonical:

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/luthers-view-on-four-books-of-new-testament/

I found this one particularly interesting:
Therefore John’s Gospel is the one, fine, true, and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, mark, and Luke.
In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine.
Luther’s Works, Vol. 35, page 362
Luther ranked the NT books according to their importance (as far as he could see it) and claimed 6 books of the NT contained all one needed to know.

He place Paul’s epistles above the synoptic Gospels.

I know Luther isn’t the last voice or the only voice of the Reformation, but you can definitely see his idea (subordination of the synoptic Gospels to Paul’s epistles) alive and well in Protestant tradition today.

Which brings us back Yada’s point about the Council of Trent. Trent was convoked in response to controversy–one issue in particular was the canon of Scripture which was questioned by Luther and the other Reformers as well as some Catholic theologians and scholars of the time. At Trent, the Church infallibly declared all the canonical books of Scripture in response to questions of the time. Trent’s decision was conservative, not innovative, and the fathers of Trent looked to previous councils to decide which books were received from the Apostles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top