Who did the Protestant reformers think they were to take books out of the Bible?

[TertiumQuid]

Well…Jon…from your quote from Cardinal Cajetan…he seems to be saying he agrees with Augustine at Carthage…he is not disputing the DCs:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

He is stating these books are “canonical”…so where does he says he is disputing the canon here in the quote you provided?

I would suggest doing some research on Cajetan before interpreting his words. A helpful book (written by a Catholic scholar) is Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy by Jared Wicks. Wicks points out that Cajetan followed Jerome in regard to the deuterocanonical books: “Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine” (p.37). In other words, Cajetan and Luther basically held the same position. Luther stated, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read” (LW 35:231).

 

[TertiumQuid]

So the question becomes what do we mean by canon? If we accept Cajetan’s point here, then Catholics and Lutherans can agree on their place in the canon.Jon

Cajetan’s point is that the books in question can not be used to establish doctrine, they can only serve to edify. If they are canonical, it’s only in this sense, an inferior sense.

Well…Jon…from your quote from Cardinal Cajetan…he seems to be saying he agrees with Augustine at Carthage…he is not disputing the DCs:

In regard to Cajetan’s mention of Augustine, it’s quite possible these words are in view:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

This is a fascinating comment when viewed in the light of the anachronistic sentiment that’s been frequently mentioned about the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage making infallible and dogmatic universal pronouncements on the canon.

Another fascinating tidbit is a closer look at the Bible available to Auguistine, Hippo, and Carthage. It included 1 and 2 Esdras. 1 Esdras was the spurious additions to Ezra and Nehemiah. 2 Esdras was the Jewish (or regular, familiar) version of Ezra-Nehemiah that we’re used to. Jerome then separated Ezra and Nehemiah, calling them 1 and 2 Esdras, dumping the original 1 Esdras out of the doctrine-establishing canon. Fast forward to Trent: Trent declares Jerome’s version of 1 & 2 Esdras to be canonical, and disregards the original 1 Esdras that Augustine, Hippo, and Carthage had. So in essence, Hippo, Carthage, and Augustine had a different canon than Trent.

Gary Michuta Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007)], resolves this dilemma by asserting Trent “passed over in silence” the spurious book of Esdras in question. I’m not completely sure if Michuta’s assertion is correct, but for the sake of argument, I’ll grant it is. He’s solved one problem and created another. The possibility now exists that the book in question is canonical, but not in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. It would also mean, the canon is still theoretically open. Michuta notes that 42 people at Trent voted to pass over the book in silence. If Michuta is correct on his interpretation of Trent, these 42 people solved the problem of the contradiction between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent, but created the problem of an unclosed canon, and uncertainty in regard to the canon.

The Catholic Catechism says, “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament…”

If Michuta is correct, is the Catechism is wrong?

 

[rnmvrck]

I see an inconsistency in your argument, which I have bolded. You claim on the first that the CC “added” and were never part of the canon, and yet in the second paragraph you say that Luther “dropped” them.

That means Luther dropped them before Trent added them.

This is the problem with the language of added and dropped. I don’t believe either to be the case. The DC books have been part of the scriptural history of the Christian religion since the early Church. They are in all of the EO canons, as well as the Catholic Church.
Further, they have also been in dispute since the early Church, though the majority view has always held them as part of the canon.

Jon

Thank you for your response…

I did not contradict myself as I stated that the Apocrphal was in the Latin Vulgate as translated by Jerome. These books were in a separate section and never accepted as canonical by some regional churches and not by others or universally by the Church at that time. While a few of the early leaders of the church accepted some of the books of Apocrypha as Scripture as well as other books, most of the great church leaders did not - Athanasius, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Jerome, to name a few. Many great church leaders spoke out against the Apocrypha. Those who do cite the Apocrypha as Scripture were very few in number. Some early church leaders like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin all believed other translated writings to be scriptural as well. These Books were part of the Septuagint but added not as canonical, but as a separate set of books – Old Testament, the Apocraphal, and the New Testament. The Apocraphal was a separate section for devotional purposes because they were not of equal authority with scripture. Jerome, probably the greatest Theologian of his time, and a declared Doctor of the Church and who translated the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.

As I said, there was much confusion and arguments over what books were in the Apocraphal as to what was to be included as Scriptural. The Council of Trent in 1546 made the claim that the local councils in Hippo and Carthage were correct and made proceeded to make these canonical and inspired. The Council accepted just some of the books as canonical rejecting others. The vote was 24 yes, 15 no, and 16 who abstained.

Why did he Council of Trent have to vote on these books as be canon and scriptural if they were declared by the Church to be canon earlier? Why were they always separated from the Old and New testament? Why did not all the books listed in the Apocraphal become accepted as inspired books at the Council of Trent when the council of Tent claimed that the regional councils at Hippo and Carthage got it right?

Just one of many quotes by early church leaders. From Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD:
“not included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish instruction in the world of godliness”.

The books were dropped by the Protestants because they were not inspired and canon and since printing presses were ready to roll did not want to confuse people with including books in the Bible that are not inspired works and contains material errors and doctrines not found anywhere else in the Bible.

My arguments for not including the Apocraphal from strongest to weakest is”

1. Material errors of facts and doctrines not supported or contradictory to other scriptures in the Bible. They may be devotional and good reading but that is it.
2. You can know if scripture is inspired if the scripture can be authenticated. The old and new testament books are authenticated because they can write history in advance. There are no prophetic passages in any of the books of the Apocraphal. In fact, the Bible is the only book that can authenticate itself as being an integrated message system written outside of time. Two thirds of the Bible is prophetic and actually there is more scripture written about the days we live (i.e., the latter days) than any other period of time. The Morman’s have spent millions on trying to authenticate their book of Morman to no avail. And the Quran has done the same. Some Muslims have web sites making this prophetic claim, but the fulfillment of their alleged prophecies are very lame. Their strongest prophecy is one predicting that the Romans would defeat the Persians in battle which the Romans actually did as they were at war for more than ten years. But, two things: the prophecy was written (632), 4 years after the Romans defeated the Persians, and the prophecy is equivalent to saying “ The Dallas Cowboys (or any team) will win a game over the next four years”. Many of the other prophecies are directly from the Old testament or are so general they could mean anything. A prophecy has to be very specific like the OT prophecy that predicts the exact day that Jesus would show up and publically declared Himself publically to be the Messiah! (Palm Sunday). And Jesus in LUKE weeped and lamented over Jerusalem because Jesus had to reject the Jews because they “did not know the day of His Visitation”.
3. Jesus biblically stated the defined the start and end of the Old Testament from Abel to Zechariah and confirmed this closure in Luke 24:44 as the Apocraphal Books were not in scriptures during the ministry of Jesus, but started showing up on canonical lists in the 4th century.
   God Bless …

 

[TertiumQuid]

Why did he Council of Trent have to vote on these books as be canon and scriptural if they were declared by the Church to be canon earlier? Why were they always separated from the Old and New testament? Why did not all the books listed in the Apocraphal become accepted as inspired books at the Council of Trent when the council of Tent claimed that the regional councils at Hippo and Carthage got it right?

Because there were two traditions concurrent throughout the history of the medieval church. That’s why you can make a list of of people either supporting or rejecting the books as canonical. The Reformation pushed the issue, and Trent settled on one tradition over the other.

As I mentioned previously, even at Trent there was a group of scholars that were knowledgeable on this issue. One particular was Cardinal Seripando. Hubert Jedin explained “…[H]e was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent."

Jedin is worth quoting at length:

“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 270-271

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”

Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 278.

Jedin also documents a group of excellent scholars that stood against “tradition” as being on the same level of authority as scripture:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”

Hubert Jedin, *Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent *(St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 281-282.

 

[steido01]

Tag

James, do you know if any modern translations of Seripando’s works are available? Or who I could read for a quick study on him, specifically?

 

[TertiumQuid]

James, do you know if any modern translations of Seripando’s works are available? Or who I could read for a quick study on him, specifically?

I’m not aware of any full-length treatments of his material available in English. I’m sure Google would give you some hits in regard to brief biographical material. Back when I came across Jedin, there was barely anything online in regard to either Jedin or Seripando.

 

[rcwitness]

This topic can be very interesting and draw alot of questions concerning the unity of Christianity!

I find points made by several non-Catholics in this thread very insightful.

The history of the Canon of Scripture is interesting. The Catholic Church did not make an “official” declaration for a canon until Trent. This is true. But this is also misleading too. The very Canon which was pronounced at Trent was taken from the decissions of Hippo and Carthage.

The Church in Trent saw the Canon of Scripture already “fixed” through these councils and the popes approval of them.

Understanding the reformation and its resulting doctrines such as Sola Scriptura, allows me to conclude that the Church’s declaration of a Canon at Trent was motivated more by reaction to Christians using Scripture against Sacred Tradition. So ISTM that Sola Scriptura heavily relies on an undisputed Canon. This means a Church council and its authority is absolutely necessary to establish a bible Canon for Scripture to be referenced. The Catholic Church uses the official language of Trent to pronounce that the Canon was already fixed by Hippo and Carthage.

Its also not practical to compare St Jerome’s discernment with Martin Luther’s. Jerome was in a time of much more uncertainty of a Canon and participated in the council which concluded with a fixed list of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I was doing a Bible study in college that was non denominational, and I must say I felt like an outcast a lot of the time, because it was mainly Protestants there. I had my Catholic Bible and whenever I would ask about a line from say the Book of Tobit, they would look at me like I was crazy because it isn’t in their Bibles. So I did research and learned that the original Greek Septuagint contained all of the books in the Catholic Bible along with 1 and 2 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and Prayer of Manessah. According to tradition the Latin Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint however the copy Jerome had was missing the books which are in Orthodox Bibles but not in Catholic Bibles. That isn’t the point though, I read that Luther took these books out because he didn’t like them, and wanted to remove Esther, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation as well. Who did he think he was to say “Oh these books aren’t inspired because I say they aren’t” and shove them in the back of the Bible and call the Apocrypha. 2 Maccabees has the doctrine of purgatory in it. And I always thought the irony was that the story of Hanukah is in 1 Maccabees yet the Hebrew Bible doesn’t even accept it as canon.

It would be even more interesting to me to find out what sources Catholics go to for this somewhat bizarre reading of history.

 

[benhur]

I don’t understand why you keep asserting that it’s strange. It’s really not. There has been dissension in the ranks for the entire history of the Church, right up to Jesus’s Apostles themselves. As I stated before, even today we have a group of Bishops actively promoting things which are 100% contrary to the defined and unchangeable Dogmas of the Church. That doesn’t make them right, nor does it mean that issue isn’t a closed one in the eyes of the Church.

 

[benhur]

No I’m not. The Jewish Canon is not the Bible. As the fulfillment of the Judaic Covenant, we of course would continue to use the religious texts of Judaic, and we certainly owe them a great deal for that, but they did not give us the Biblical Canon, which is what I am referring to in this discussion.

Strange statement that we use their books but they did not give us “canon”. How do we know which of their books to use ? We “canonize” their testament ? Even Jerome thought we owed them a little more than that.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

This topic can be very interesting and draw alot of questions concerning the unity of Christianity!

I find points made by several non-Catholics in this thread very insightful.

The history of the Canon of Scripture is interesting. The Catholic Church did not make an “official” declaration for a canon until Trent. This is true. But this is also misleading too. The very Canon which was pronounced at Trent was taken from the decissions of Hippo and Carthage.

The Church in Trent saw the Canon of Scripture already “fixed” through these councils and the popes approval of them.

Understanding the reformation and its resulting doctrines such as Sola Scriptura, allows me to conclude that the Church’s declaration of a Canon at Trent was motivated more by reaction to Christians using Scripture against Sacred Tradition. So ISTM that Sola Scriptura heavily relies on an undisputed Canon. This means a Church council and its authority is absolutely necessary to establish a bible Canon for Scripture to be referenced. The Catholic Church uses the official language of Trent to pronounce that the Canon was already fixed by Hippo and Carthage.

Its also not practical to compare St Jerome’s discernment with Martin Luther’s. Jerome was in a time of much more uncertainty of a Canon and participated in the council which concluded with a fixed list of Sacred Scripture.

Hi rc

Enjoyed your post. I would only add that as Trent used previous councils/popes for foundation, the first council (Hippo 393AD) on this matter also used previously laid foundation, even tradition on the matter. How else could Eusebius make 50 bibles for Constantine (325?), or few of the fathers (Origen 250 AD) start referring to the 27 books as “New Testament” before that first “canonizing” council ? Which to me would shed a little more positive light on the foundation Jerome had before his Vulgate venture .

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

It would be even more interesting to me to find out what sources Catholics go to for this somewhat bizarre reading of history.

What part is bizarre?

 

[Duane1966]

Thank you for your response…

This whole post is full of errors. St Jerome quotes the deuterocanonicals as scripture approximately 55 times. Here are just a few, taken from this link:matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St. Jerome, [347-419/420 A.D]

Nonetheless, we will see in practice that St. Jerome quoted from these booksas Scripture, and held them at the same level of inspiration as other Scriptures.If one goes to the index of Quotations from Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, volume 6 (which does not contain all of St. Jerome’s writings), you will see that he refers to and quotes from the Deuterocanonicalsas Scripture.In my perusal of the index, I found him quoting/referring to passages in the Deuterocanonicals approximately 55 times: Here is a sampling of his quotesoes not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’[SIRACH 13:2]Jerome,To Eustochium,Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207St. Jerome himself calls Sirach, which he had referred to as non-canonical, as Scripture. Thus, in practice, to support doctrine, he calls it Scripture. This quotation, even if there were no other quotations from him on the Deuterocanonicals, show that his view on what is and is not Scripture can not be seen from his earlier citation.Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says:"wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’[Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age(Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59,*only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome,To Paulinus,Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119Here St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books."I would cite the wordsof the psalmist:‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17]and those of Ezekiel’I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23]AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’[Baruch 5:5]*AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome,*To Oceanus,Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God’s Word. Also, contrary to Rhodes’ assertion that the Deuterocanonicals had no prophets,Jerome himselfcalls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God’s Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.still our merrimentmust not forget the limit set by Scripture,*and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed,*remind me of the sacred volume,*for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36,*Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome,To Eustochium,Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45Notice that St. Jerome quotes in reference to Scriptures, and the Sacred Volumes. Then he refers to 3 passages. Ezekiel, Baruch, and Matthew. Now, St. Jerome here refers to Jeremiah giving letters (plural) to Baruch. One time in Jeremiah 36, and another time in Baruch 6, as the Protestant Schaff editor indicates. Thus, Baruch is clearly Scripture, and he is clearly an author of the Sacred Volume, the Bible.As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent.[Sir. 27:5]"Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation."And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1]“My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.”*Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]“Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.” It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome,*Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2,

To be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Part 2

And here is Origen, again from above website.

Origen, [185-253/254 A.D]Supposedly Origen spoke against the Deuterocanonicals. We are going back to the Third century here. Origen gives his version of the ‘canonical’ books."

‘It should be stated that the*canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.’
Farther on he says: ‘The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, ‘In the beginning’; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, ‘These are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he called’; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ’ These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of God’; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, ‘The kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, ‘Records of days’; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant’; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Me-loth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia[Baruch 6]; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel." Origen, Canon of the Hebrews, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History,6:25[A.D. 244],in NPNF2,I:272

Origen approximately a century and a half before the Councils of Rome and Carthage, identified Scripture as he saw it. Though he is quoted by the Protestant apologists as being anti-Deuterocanonical, and does not mention all the Deuterocanonical books, he does put Baruch and the two Maccabees books in the canon.

Remember, canonical does not necessarily mean all that is Scripture. We will see this in his following statements.

“In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, ‘Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.’ Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community.” Origen,*To Africanus,*5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:387

 

[Duane1966]

Origen continued.

Origen notes that the Scriptures that are in the Church are different from the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, he speaks approvingly of the Septuagint, which contains all the Deuterocanonical books. Now, Africanus had written to Origen that the passage was a forgery. Let us see how Origen responds:

1. You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus,I used the Scripturewhich contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious.You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what itbehoves us to do in the casesnot only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christin that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon,which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel itself I found the word “bound” followed in our versions by very many verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies which circulate in the Churches) thus:“Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael prayed and sang unto God,” down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth for ever and ever. And it came to pass, when the king heard them singing, and saw them that they were alive.“Or, as in another copy, from"And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God and blessing the Lord,” down to “O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth to all generations.”*[The Song of the Three Children, found in Daniel 3 of the Catholic Bible]*But in the Hebrew copies the words, “And these three men, Sedrach, Misach, and Abednego fell down bound into the midst of the fire,” are immediately followed by the verse, “Nabouchodonosor the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors.” For so Aquila, following the Hebrew reading, gives it, who has obtained the credit among the Jews of having interpreted the Scriptures with no ordinary care, and whose version is most commonly used by those who do not know Hebrew, as the one which has been most successful. Of the copies in my possession whose readings I gave, one follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion; and just as the History of Susanna which you call a forgery is found in both, together with the passages at the end of Daniel, so they give also these passages, amounting, to make a rough guess, to more than two hundred verses. Origen,To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386

Notice that Origen defends the use of the passage in Daniel 3 that Catholics have, the Song of the 3 children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as found in Daniel 13 and 14 of the Catholic Bible. He says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna, Daniel 13 and 14 and only found in the Catholic Bible, is found in every single Church of Christ. Origen himself acknowledges that all Churches use these books. And in which way? He notes that he refers to them as Scripture. His opponent said it was a forgery. He corrects his opponent. It is not a forgery, but he notes his own use of them*as Scripture.

There is more…

 

[Duane1966]

Origen continued.

Why did the Jews remove them from their Scriptures? Origen speaks of why he thinks that the passage on Susannah was removed. The Jews did not want passages showing elders being condemned. In the story of Susannah, Susannah is lusted after by two elders, who attempt to sexually assault her. Daniel comes to her defense and condemns the elders. Here is Origen’s theory on why the Jews threw out these Scriptures:

Why did the Jews remove them from their Scriptures? Origen speaks of why he thinks that the passage on Susannah was removed. The Jews did not want passages showing elders being condemned. In the story of Susannah, Susannah is lusted after by two elders, who attempt to sexually assault her. Daniel comes to her defense and condemns the elders. Here is Origen’s theory on why the Jews threw out these Scriptures:Let us see now if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion, that while the Saviour gives a true account of them, none of the Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found. For they who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.”[2] In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or Jeremias, or any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture.Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, butwas concealed and removed from the Scriptures*by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders.*Origen,To Africanus,9(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:389Thus, Origen speaks of the validity and the true Scriptural status of the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel. He says that Christians don’t have to doubt its veracity. He claims the Jews just concealed and removed it from their Scriptures for the sake of protecting their elders. The Church does not participate in this concealment, as Origen indicates, as it is true Scripture.And I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. Origen,*To Africanus, 5(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:387.
The only reason that he doesn’t use the passages with the Jews is because they don’t accept them. However, when speaking to Christians, he not only defends their Scriptural status, but refers to them as such. Now we will look at how he treats the Deuterocanonicals:

"But he ought to know thatthose who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scriptureunderstand the saying,‘The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,’[Sirach 21:18]*and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen,Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615

Origen has much more.

 

[Duane1966]

St. Athanasius.

St. Athanasius, in the Festal letter number 39, gives a list of the canon. Now, of the Deuterocanonicals he does term Baruch as a canonical book. He does exclude the other Deuterocanonicals. He also excludes Esther. So Protestants pointing to him is of no use as his list does not match the Protestant canon. However, as we will also see with St. Cyril of Jerusalem and others, the list of the canon is not all of inspired Scripture, and because books are excluded from the canon does not necessarily mean that they are not Scripture.St. Athanasius says this about the Deuterocanonicals:But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity;*that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon,*but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read… Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.)[2]

Mark Bonocore elaborates on the possible meaning of St. Athanasius excluding the Deuteros from the canon itself:**In regard to Athanasius, what I think we need to consider is that, in his Epistle 39, he is speaking as the Patriarch of Alexandria --a liturgical office. What he seems to be doing, therefore, is defining the Liturgical canon for the Alexandrian Patriarchate (a diocese including all of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis in Palestine …and, by association, Ethiopia). Such an address by a reigning Patriarch can only be Liturgical in nature, and would not …at this time …address the inspiration or lack of inspiration of a particular book. In this, what cannot be denied is that the Egyptian and Libyan Church did believe the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc. to be inspired Scripture. **They were unquestionably included in the Alexandrian Septuagint from pre-Christian times; and remain in the Biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews to this very day. (Email from Mark Bonocore, August 2, 2001)

Thus, the theory that we saw at the beginning of this paper, that the term ‘canon’ sometimes only means ‘those books that are read in the Liturgy’ will most seem to fit St. Athanasius when we see him in practice. He is not meaning to describe through the term ‘canon’ the full extent of Scripture. That is what the Protestant apologists falsely assume when he gives us the list. St. Athanasius refers to the Deuterocanonical books according to my count 46 times, as noted in the index of Schaff, NPNF2, Volume 4, which does not in fact give all his writings.

 

[Duane1966]

And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, , Pope St. Damasus I, the , St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

Taken from this website:catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html

 

[Duane1966]

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

John 5:18 – Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

 

[Duane1966]

Jerome, probably the greatest Theologian of his time, and a declared Doctor of the Church and who translated the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.

The how do you account for this from St. Jerome?

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.He wrote, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant.** For I was not relating my own personal views, **but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.

There are no prophetic passages in any of the books of the Apocraphal.

I gave you one in an earlier post. Does the bible say that a book must be prophetic to be scripture?