Two things:
I’ve run into this mistaken belief many times. No matter how I try to present the historical facts, I’m met with derision. I’ve come to the conclusion that there are people who will never, ever change their minds about certain things no matter what. I don’t give up, mind you–I just go in reminding myself of that!
You are both wrong.
Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a clue.
They believe this way because of a messed up idea of history. At the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) the canon of Scripture was made dogma. Our canon had been the accepted canon from the fourth century up to Mr. Luther. Luther didn’t like some of the doctrines the deuterocanonicals taught, so he needed to get rid of them. He did not get rid of them entirely (that was done later by the Anabaptists, I believe . . . I could be wrong), he merely declared them “apocrypha” (which means “hidden”) and moved them to the back of his Bible and called them “good reading.” In an effort to stop this heresy from spreading (it was much too late), the Council of Trent affirmed the canon which had been accepted in Christianity from the fourth century on. Perhaps not by individuals (Jerome) but by the Church (which is the only institution with God’s authority) has always accepted all 73 books.
No, no tomster, LutheraTeach is right. ALL of the councils affirming the Canon of Scripture were simply meetings, barbecues, or potlucks (ok, didnt mean that to sound as rude as it did… sorry). They had no real decision until Trent. Didnt you read about that? It wasnt until we wanted to separate ourselves from that wicked Luther that we added those books.
So, can you date when the Eastern Orthodox Church rejected that and embraced a larger set of Deutro OT books? And would you please date when all the various Oriental Orthodox groups officially denounced that ruling and variously embraced thier own unique set of these Deutero books?
Did you know that he included them (the unique set of Catholic ones, although it had not yet officially canonized them) in his translation? How is that “rejecting” them? Did you know he often quoted from them, preached from them, and they are referenced in the Lutheran Confessions? How is that “rejecting” them?
I think what you mean is “The Catholic Church ALONE accepted them - no other Christian group agreed with our unique books.” Self usually agrees with self.
Actually, I don’t think Protestants generally regard ANY of those to be Ecumenical Councils. I think you might be confusing a denomination officially embracing a reality with the reality. What my Catholic teachers taught me (and I realize, you may have been tuaght the opposite), those meetings AFFIRMED and EMBRACE the canon OFFICIALLY for ITSELF, they in no sense formed or created the list. History affirms that. I could offically declare that the sun came up this morning. My affirmation of such has nothing to do with the reality that the sun came up. Actually, most Protestants affirm those 66 books because the church (CHRISTIANS) have, because they have a firm, historic, ecumenical consensus. For those that embrace a LARGE number of extra OT books (and no one even agrees on what that list is!), there is no consensus on what of them should or should not be embraced beyond a single denomination (consensus of all of just one) - and taht rarely ancient or official. I suspect when the several groups that affirm various sets of these, in various ways, always uniquely, come to some consensus - and if such is affirmed ecumenically or in a true ecumenical council - Protestants would affirm them, too. I, as a Protestant, have absolutely nothing against them. I don’t extensively study or read or teach or quote from them as Luther and the Lutheran Church Fathers did, but I find nothing in them problematic. There’s also nothing in them of any consequence (which is probably why during all my years as a Catholic, I never heard them mentioned at all except to condemn Protestants for not accepting the CC’s unique set as the CC did at Trent). Kind moot, really.
Actually, they don’t. These were not true Ecumenical Councils. But you seem to be confusing things. I hope you are not suggesting that if something is correct at ONE point, it MUST, ergo, be accepted at all? Surely you are not! You might agree with President Obama that there are 50 States in the USA (a statement he made during the campaign) but not that abortion should be legal on demand, so that he’s RIGHT at one point, but WRONG on another. I think Protestants would disagree with you that just because a teacher is right on some counts, he/she/it MUST be right at EVERY point. I’m sure you agree with them. So, while they think these meetings were right in affirming the NT books officially for their group - and they are too since all their groups have also officially embraced those books (nothin’ unique about The Catholic Church on that count), they might not agree aobut the Deutero books, just as you don’t agree with the Eastern Orthodox Church on them, and neither you or the Eastern Orthodox Church agree with the Oriental Orthodox Churches on them. There is no consenses beyond just one regarding them - and never has been. That’s all Protestants are saying.
Rob your history is slightly distorted. The 7 books you refer to were never accepted by the Jews as canonical. Neither did the early church including several Popes and Jerome himself. The official position of the church initially was that the 7 works were good reading for edification but not for articles of Faith. Luther never excluded them but emphasized the same position as the Jews and early church. Great reading but not considered inspired and definitely not to be used for settling matters of Faith. When the official canon was established by the Jews the 7 works you refer to were not included nor were they included by the Catholic Church as official canon. The Catholic Church included them for edification reading only. Aside from some historical errors they contain there are conflicting issues with the works of the Apocrypha but that’s a separate discussion.
Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong with your history. The Church discerned the canon, beginning with the Council of Laodicea (360 A.D.) and continuing with the Council of Rome (382 A.D.) which actually listed the exact books found in today’s Catholic canon. The Church further confirmed that same canon at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.). In the face of the Reformation, the Church, at the Council of Trent in 1556, reaffirmed the same canon and rejected the removal of the seven books, along with the removal of 66 verses of the 3rd chapter and the entire 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel and 7 chapters of the Book of Esther.
Wrong, wrong, wrong in so many ways…… You are really going to have to pony up some proof here with regards to *“Neither did the early church including several Popes and Jerome himself. The official position of the church initially was that the 7 works were good reading for edification but not for articles of Faith.”*Please show me the Catholic Church’s documents to support this assertion.
Sorry but your history is a little off here Steve. Hippo and Carthage under the influence of Augustine added the works to the OT but did not recognize them as canon. Also point of fact the canon approved by Carthage is different from that approved by Trent. The Council of Trent omits the Septuagint First Esdras which was included by Carthage. Second Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah combined in a single book in the Septuagint) were distinguished as two separate books (First Esdras and Second Esdras, also known as Nehemiah).
No right right right in every way. Go back and research Jerome’s official position on the deutero’s and then read Pope Gregory’s position and then also as noted in another post read the positions of the following: Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, The Council of Laodicea (343-391 A.D.), Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius, and Rufinus.
This is not true at all and just shows your misunderstanding of Jewish history. You are terribly mixing your Jewish sects here. The Sadducees were the only Jewish sect that accepted only the first 5 books of the OT. As far as why we should care what the Jewish community listed?? Well I think Paul answers that quite nicely in Romans 3:1,2 and I quote:
False False False. Luther did not reject them and I certainly don’t either. Many Protestants don’t reject them. They’re just not held with the same classification as the rest of the works. Jerome who was one of the few church fathers to know Greek and Hebrew rejected the deuteros because they were not part of Hebrew Scripture. If you think for one second that the deuteros were never an issue amongst Catholics you are flat out wrong. Again as mentioned in another post Catholic editions of the Bible published in Germany and in France in 1527 and 1530 contained only the protocanonical books meaning the ones identical to the Hebrew and Protestant Bibles. Please explain that fact.
Please explain why the Council of Laodicea lists only 22 books for the old testament.
I didn’t say there wasn’t discussion. I was only giving you the history of how the canon was determined, the final determination of which was approved at Carthage in 397 A.D. However as early as the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. the entire canon which exists today was in place.
And this is the point about Luther: his right to contest and question the OT canon was the same right that Cardinal Cajetan had, and every Catholic had prior to Trent.