What is the history of the Dueterocannicals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FuzzyBunny116
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FuzzyBunny116

Guest
By this I mean, how and when were they added? I realize most of the Bible was settled on in the late 4th century, so where do the Dueterocannicals come in? And while we’re at it, what about the books in the Orthodox Bible?
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
By this I mean, how and when were they added? I realize most of the Bible was settled on in the late 4th century, so where do the Dueterocannicals come in? And while we’re at it, what about the books in the Orthodox Bible?
Click to expand...
what makes them a point of discussion is why they were always considered part of the bible by all christians… until they were removed by protestants after the Reformation.

I good debate on CD, DVD, and VHS is available:

gmichuta@hotmail.com

Gary Michuta went head-to-head with anti-Catholic James White back in 2004… it is a dry subject, but the debate is a good summary.

Also… you can “search” at this forum for lots of threads.
 
The Catholic Church did not add any books to the Bible. I believe your question is more about the difference between the Septuagint and rabbinic Old Testement scriptures.

In Jesus’ day the canon of the OT had not been settled. Different groups in Palestine honored different canons of scripture. The Sadducees and Samaritans, for example, held that only the first five books of the Bible were Scripture. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition that is much like the Protestant one today. Finally, some Jews honored the canonical tradition that is much like the Septuagint translation of the OT.

The Greek translation was made between 250-125 BC and is known as the “Septuagint” after the Latin word for 70(LXX), which is the number of authors who compiled it.

So which canon did Jesus use?? In His time Hebrew was a dead language and most Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic, while Greek was common in the Mediterranean. So it is no surprise that all the New Testament writers used the Greek Septuagint. The vast majority of OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint. In fact, even Protestant authors Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno list 340 places where the NT sited the Septuagint, as opposed to only 33 from the Hebrew canon. That’s 90% use of the Septuagint only.

In 1529 Martin Luther proposed to adopt the Hebrew canon used by rabbinic Judaism (Those who rejected Jesus) of 39 books of OT canon. He did this because he did not like what some of the seven books had to say, like praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees.

In response to this heresy, the Council of Trent **reaffirmed ** the 73 book canon of the Bible, including the 46 book Septuagint OT. The Catholic Church did not add the seven books, but merely reaffirmed what she had established 1200 years earlier.

Would you rather use the OT used by the apostles and other NT writers, or the OT used by the Jews who later rejected Christ?

If you follow the Septuagint you follow the apostles and other NT writers. If you follow the Hebrew you follow those who rejected Jesus and Martin Luther.

Around the end of the fourth century, The Church settled the confusion and established the canon of the OT and NT with a series of councils and decrees.

382AD - Pope Damasus, wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT canon of 73 books.
393AD - Council of Hippo approved the 73 book OT and NT canon.
397AD - Council of Carthage also approved the 73 book OT and NT canon.
405AD - Pope St. Innocent wrote a letter confirming the 73 book OT and NT canon approved at Hippo and Carthage.
419AD - Second Council of Carthage also approved the 73 book OT and NT canon.
1441AD - the ecumenical council of Florence formally defined the same 73 book list of Scripture.
1546AD - the ecumenical council of Trent formally defined the same 73 books as the canon of the Bible.
 
40.png
IanS:
In Jesus’ day the canon of the OT had not been settled. Different groups in Palestine honored different canons of scripture. The Sadducees and Samaritans, for example, held that only the first five books of the Bible were Scripture. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition that is much like the Protestant one today. Finally, some Jews honored the canonical tradition that is much like the Septuagint translation of the OT.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it ironic that protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura can read where Jesus admonished/instructed these groups to at least believe in what they claimed was their scripture.

Yet the protestants who reject the deuterocanonicals, and claim to believe all the rest… reject John 6 and its clear teaching… same for the CofC who only preach the NT as necessary for salvation,.
 
40.png
MrS:
Isn’t it ironic that protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura can read where Jesus admonished/instructed these groups to at least believe in what they claimed was their scripture.

Yet the protestants who reject the deuterocanonicals, and claim to believe all the rest… reject John 6 and its clear teaching… same for the CofC who only preach the NT as necessary for salvation,.
Click to expand...
Funny you mention C of C, one of my brothers and his family belong to one of those. I don’t know why they don’t just get it over with and rip out everything from Sacred Scripture except the few parts of the Gospels that gives them warm-fuzzies.

It goes even beyond John 6 and the deuterocanonicals . What’s sad is many protestants (not all) I talk to aren’t even aware of many of the types of the OT, yet they claim to be scripture experts. What I’ve found is that often their “expertise” boils down to nothing more than the ability to quote a few memorized NT scriptures and some canned responses. However, if you take them outside of their comfort zone (history is a good one), they either look at you like a deer caught in headlights or just get mad and start calling you names.
 
40.png
IanS:
The Catholic Church did not add any books to the Bible
Click to expand...
Sure we did - 27, in fact! It’s called the New Testament.

😃

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
IanS:
Funny you mention C of C, one of my brothers and his family belong to one of those. I don’t know why they don’t just get it over with and rip out everything from Sacred Scripture except the few parts of the Gospels that gives them warm-fuzzies.

It goes even beyond John 6 and the deuterocanonicals . What’s sad is many protestants (not all) I talk to aren’t even aware of many of the types of the OT, yet they claim to be scripture experts. What I’ve found is that often their “expertise” boils down to nothing more than the ability to quote a few memorized NT scriptures and some canned responses. However, if you take them outside of their comfort zone (history is a good one), they either look at you like a deer caught in headlights or just get mad and start calling you names.
Click to expand...
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_160.gif boy is that the truth… Mormons and JWs seem to just get a bit quiet while their wheels turn in a different direction.
 
So what it essentially boils down to, is that the Catholic Church used a form of the OT used by a certain group of Jews, while Protestants believe in a different version of the OT used by another group of Jews?

Where do the Orthodox come in, then? If I recall correctly, they’ve got a couple books more than us.
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
So what it essentially boils down to, is that the Catholic Church used a form of the OT used by a certain group of Jews, while Protestants believe in a different version of the OT used by another group of Jews?

Where do the Orthodox come in, then? If I recall correctly, they’ve got a couple books more than us.
Click to expand...
Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, they use the entire Septuagint, while the Catholic Church doesn’t include the following:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox
Code: 
* 1 Esdras
* 3 Maccabees
* Odes
* Psalm 151
Russian and Oriental Orthodox
Code: 
* 2 Esdras
Oriental Orthodox
Code: 
* Jubilees
* Enoch
Also in Orthdox bibles, 4 Maccabees forms an appendix.

Btw, I don’t think 2 Esdras, Jubilees, or Enoch are a part of the Septuagint.
 
The Deuterocanonical books were in all Bibles originally.

Many Protestant Bibles would put them in a separate section, called “Apocrypha”, but they were there. This began to change in early (colonial) America, because of the various Christian groups that settled here, who did not consider them canonical.
Still, it was only in the 19th century that the majority of Protestants began to use Bibles that did not include these books.

Interestingly, today, many protestant Bibles are putting them in again, although still separate, & considered of “less value” than the rest of the Bible. (All this makes no sense to me, either!)
 
Not to be rude, and thanks to everyone for their answers, but does my summary above sound about right?
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
So what it essentially boils down to, is that the Catholic Church used a form of the OT used by a certain group of Jews, while Protestants believe in a different version of the OT used by another group of Jews?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah, or 5 books of Moses. The Pharisees accepted the equivalent of the 39 books that Protestants accept. Because the Jews combined them differently, it added up to 24, but it was the same material. The Alexandrian Jews, as well as the Greek speaking Jews throughout the then known world, accepted the Septuagint.
Where do the Orthodox come in, then? If I recall correctly, they’ve got a couple books more than us.
Click to expand...
The canon that we have today was first compiled through local councils (Rome, Carthage, & Hippo). Since they weren’t General/Ecumenical councils, the Eastern churches weren’t bound to use only them. The split between East and West was final in 1054. The first General council to universally define the canon of Scripture was Florence around 1439 +/-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top