Was the Church inconsistent with the deuterocanonical books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As has been the case for the past 502 years, all of tis can easily be cleared up by citing the documents of the Protestant Ecumenical Council which met over the course of several years and decided the canon of scripture.

Except that this never happened.
 
It depends on which Protestant tradition you are talking about when regarding how they view the “Apocrypha” Traditional Protestant groups like Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Methodists view it as something good to read. However it isn’t for making doctrines. More of good for as they say “a way of life”.
As for how they view 2(4) Esdras, they would view it the same as they view 2 Maccabees. It isn’t authoratative but good for reading. So naturally some may say, okay so if the Church affirmed the Vulgate and the books in it why did they not accept these as well?

Some offshoots to traditional Protestantism view the Apocrypha as useless and even “bad” to read. Which is stupid. That’s total bias on their part and a lack of historical knowledge.

As for Catholics and these three texts of the Prayer of Manasseh, 1(3)Esdras, and 2(4) Esdras, I think the view is somewhat relatable to how traditional Protestants view the entire “Apocrypha”. The Church obviously wanted us to read them if we so desired, seeing as they were in an appendix to the Clementine Vulgate for centuries and are used in Liturgy. They just aren’t for making doctrine. That would explain why Raphael is an official archangel in the Church yet Uriel is not even though he is in 2(4) Esdras.
 
Last edited:
They’ve had quite a few councils. Just depends on the tradition you are speaking of. The Westminster Assembly in 1646 stated most of the articles of religion in Anglicanism. The Lambeth Conferences happen every 20 years in Anglican communion. Lutherans subscribe to the Augsburg Confession which was written in 1530.
 
The Council of Florence in 1442 gave the same canon as Trent would later give, so I’m not sure how the claim is being made that the canon was unsettled before Trent–Trent was responding to the Protestant objections as to various canonical books.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
It isn’t authoratative but good for reading. So naturally some may say, okay so if the Church affirmed the Vulgate and the books in it why did they not accept these as well?
Click to expand...
Did I say something about Protestants? It is a problematic term in 1542, when Trent decreed which books are in the Bible. Technically, Luther called for a council of Germans to address the issues he raised. When Paul III called the Council, it was probably irenic, though later sessions became more contentious. The few bishops present for the discussion of the bible had no idea of Protestants, except as members of the Church.

Textual criticism was in its infancy, or maybe even in utero. This early stage had to decide which books to include. NT and Hebrew texts were easy, universally recognized. Greek OT was more difficult, as not all lists agreed. Even those who relied on the Latin found differences in what books were included.
 
I’m talking about the Vulgate in 1592 after the Council of Trent. The Clementine Vulgate. They include the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Esdras in an appendix.
Clement Vlll said in the preface
Oratio Manassa, necnon Libri duo, qui sub libri Tertii & Quarti Esdrae nomine circumferuntur, hoc in loco, extra scilicet seriem canonicorum Librorum, quos sancta Tridentina Synodus suscepit, & pro Canonicis suscipiendos decreuit, sepositi sunt, ne prorsus interirent, quippe qui a nonnullis sanctis Patribus interdum citantur, & in aliquibus Bibliis Latinis tam manuscriptis quam impressis reperiuntur.

The Prayer of Manasseh, as well as two books, which circulate under the name of the Third and Fourth Book of Ezra, are set aside in this place—that is, outside the series of canonical books, which the holy Tridentine Synod accepted, and determined should be taken up for canonical—lest they should perish completely, since they are sometimes cited by some of the holy Fathers, and they are found in some Latin books, both manuscript and printed.

So the Church always promoted Catholics reading them even if they weren’t considered canonical scripture.
 
The publication in 1592 was based on decisions made in 1544 and 1442 and so on. It is hard to say “always” when some Bibles included 2(4) Esdras and others did not. It is hard to say “never” when many Fathers quoted from 1(3) Esdras.

Since Trent there has been consistency. Before that people held a variety of opinions.
 
I understand that.
I accept what the Church teaches regarding the Canon.
I’m not sitting here saying these books belong in the Bible. I am simply saying that these three texts aren’t to be considered bad and the Church by putting them in the appendix of the Vulgate obviously wanted them retained and to continue to be read.
 
Interestingly the Ethiopian Orthodox Church takes , not pride but makes no secret that they have the longest canon in the world.
Most of the books they accept such as Enoch and Jubilees, nothing wrong with them really. Actually doesn’t Jude quote from Enoch?
 
Yah 1(3) Esdras is much more known in the Greek Churches. I believe there it is called Esdras A. It recounts the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles and then Ezra and Nehemiah with unique material in chapters 3-5.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top