Who reads the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonicals?

[BRB]

The early Church Fathers generally ruled them outside of the Church canon … and not for use in forming dogmas.

Still, at Council of Trent [1500’s] … they got included.

So, now I’m converted to most Catholic ways of thinking … I’m starting to read them. Having heard the Protestant ‘protestations’ over them … [as works of satan] … I was prepared for the worst.

Read Tobit last night. I was pleasantly surprized … very interesting & inspirational, a great read and I didn’t come across anything too outlandish. Almsgiving is highly advised … 30 % in fact

All together these books cover as much material as the NT .

Should I read the rest of these books in order found in Catholic bible … or is there a preferred way/order of reading them? Which are the Catholic favorites ? Bel and Dragon ???

I hope the rest are as interesting as Tobit was

 

[tobinatorstark]

I read the deutroconnical books. In fact when I started reading the Bible on a daily basis to learn more about Christ and my faith the first 7 books I read were the Deutrocannical books

 

[Ron_Conte]

The canon of Scripture was determined much earlier than Trent.

“Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.”
web.archive.org/web/20000816074050/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

There is also the determination of the Canon by useage in the Living Tradition.

The Council of Trent is the culmination, not the starting point, for the definition of the canon.

 

[Bwsherman]

I think you may also enjoy 1st and 2nd Maccabees. They both cover the same event from different theological perspectives. However, they also set the stage politically for the time of Christ and incorporate strong Messianic undertones throughout. I think you might be suprised at the names found in them. They are more familiar to you than you think. God bless and happy reading!

Pax

 

[MarcoPolo]

The early Church Fathers generally ruled them outside of the Church canon … and not for use in forming dogmas.

Whoever told you this did you a disservice. I must recommend Gary Michuta’s book “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger” for a treatment on Christian writings from the beginning through the Reformation. You will see that it was not until around 1000 or so if I remember right that rejection of the deuteros was boosted. There are a number of minority voices in the first few centuries too, but most accepted them, especially in councils of multiple bishops, like Rome and Carthage at the end of the 4th centuries.

Gary’s book, in my humble opinion, is thus far the most significant apologetics book of the 21st century (that I’ve read anyway ) The book is good for reference too, as it is broken down quite a bit by Church Father and what each had to say about these books and how they used them.

 

[Bwsherman]

Whoever told you this did you a disservice. I must recommend Gary Michuta’s book “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger” for a treatment on Christian writings from the beginning through the Reformation. You will see that it was not until around 1000 or so if I remember right that rejection of the deuteros was boosted. There are a number of minority voices in the first few centuries too, but most accepted them, especially in councils of multiple bishops, like Rome and Carthage at the end of the 4th centuries.

Gary’s book, in my humble opinion, is thus far the most significant apologetics book of the 21st century (that I’ve read anyway ) The book is good for reference too, as it is broken down quite a bit by Church Father and what each had to say about these books and how they used them.

Not to throw fuel to the fire, but St. Jerome was against including them in his work. That does not take away from their worth, however, that does show an earlier Church Father than you quote.

 

[BRB]

I think you may also enjoy 1st and 2nd Maccabees. They both cover the same event from different theological perspectives. However, they also set the stage politically for the time of Christ and incorporate strong Messianic undertones throughout. I think you might be suprised at the names found in them. They are more familiar to you than you think. God bless and happy reading!

Pax

Maccabees have been on/off various Father Lists. For example, Athanasius did not include Maccabees as valid among these extra [inspirational] books. He only would allow Wisdom, Esther, Judith, and Tobit.

Any others … Athanansius considered the ‘invention of heretics … and intended to lead the simple-minded astray’

Apparently Gregory of Nazianzus … saw it like Athanansius did.

Jerome, at a slightly later date, did allow in Maccabees - since some in early Church were already reading them.

Augustine appears to have allowed Maccabees … but, he wasn’t an expert in ancient languages — and relied alot on Jerome in this area.

 

[Bwsherman]

Maccabees have been on/off various Father Lists. For example, Athanasius did not include Maccabees as valid among these extra [inspirational] books. He only would allow Wisdom, Esther, Judith, and Tobit.

Any others … Athanansius considered the ‘invention of heretics … and intended to lead the simple-minded astray’

Apparently Gregory of Nazianzus … saw it like Athanansius did.

Jerome, at a slightly later date, did allow in Maccabees - since some in early Church were already reading them.

Augustine appears to have allowed Maccabees … but, he wasn’t an expert in ancient languages — and relied alot on Jerome in this area.

That all sounds fine, but it is still a very good read. I thought that is what you were asking for.

 

[BRB]

There are a number of minority voices in the first few centuries too, but most accepted them, especially in councils of multiple bishops, like Rome and Carthage at the end of the 4th centuries.

.

Athanasius was the ‘Godfather’ of what was deemed the Canon Law '‘goldstandard’. His (name removed by moderator)ut was paramount in first determinations set by Canons of Laodicea … in 363 AD.

He also singlehandedly saved the Church from the heretical influence of Arianism.

 

[BRB]

That all sounds fine, but it is still a very good read. I thought that is what you were asking for.

Yes, but knowing that Athanasius looked upon Maccabees with jaundiced eye … should not be taken lightly.

He did accept the others … giving ‘stamp of approval’ for noncanonical, inspirational reading.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Not to throw fuel to the fire, but St. Jerome was against including them in his work.

Jerome actually had a love-hate relationship with the deuteros. He sometimes quoted them as Scripture. Other days he rejected them. It is treated in Gary’s book as well!

 

[Bwsherman]

Yes, but knowing that Athanasius looked upon Maccabees with jaundiced eye … should not be taken lightly.

He did accept the others … giving ‘stamp of approval’ for noncanonical, inspirational reading.

I guess I am not sure I understand. Yes Athanasius may have not looked favorably upon them, however, the Church decided to include them in the formal canon. While I respect the opinion of Athanasius and his influence on the canon itself, one ultimately has to be humble in responding to the Church’s decision whether we understand it or not. That is part of the Church’s sacramentality.

 

[juliamajor]

There is so little info out about this era between the Testaments that these books illuminate.Read it with an eye towards the NT and you can see how influential these books were.Resurrection of the body,praying for the dead,vicarious suffering and other ideas that Christ preached grew to fruition at this time…Disagreements between Sadducees and Pharisees have their historical roots here.

 

[djrakowski]

Not to throw fuel to the fire, but St. Jerome was against including them in his work. That does not take away from their worth, however, that does show an earlier Church Father than you quote.

And yet, St. Jerome did include them on the authority of the Church, despite how he personally felt about them. Luther, on the other hand…

 

[BRB]

Athanasius may have not looked favorably upon them, however, the Church decided to include them in the formal canon. While I respect the opinion of Athanasius and his influence on the canon itself, one ultimately has to be humble in responding to the Church’s decision whether we understand it or not. That is part of the Church’s sacramentality.

Ron Conte’s reference link is very good on this.

Would appear there was so much disagreement between Church fathers … that at later dates additional councils made additional decisions based on tradition.

To quote them:

“So neither a fluctuating Septuagint nor an inexplicit NT conveys to us the exact extension of the pre-Christian Bible transmitted by the Apostles to the Primitive Church. It is more tenable to conclude to a selective process under the ‘guidance of the Holy Ghost’, and a process completed so late in Apostolic times that the NT fails to reflect its mature result regarding either the number or note of sanctity of the extra-Palestinan books admitted. To historically learn the Apostolic Canon of the OT, we must interrogate less sacred but later documents, expressing more explicitly the belief of the first ages of Christianity.”

… thus, looks like we must trust God to of delivered to us the critical inspired info by process of time, trial and error, and H.S. working thru centuries of history.

 

[Bwsherman]

And yet, St. Jerome did include them on the authority of the Church, despite how he personally felt about them. Luther, on the other hand…

That was exactly my point. Even though St. Jerome may not have been in favor of them, he submitted to the authority of the Church. This is exactly what we are called to do today.

 

[djrakowski]

That was exactly my point. Even though St. Jerome may not have been in favor of them, he submitted to the authority of the Church. This is exactly what we are called to do today.

Right. In fact, virtually every dispute between Catholics and non-Catholics has its root in the questioning and/or rejection of the legitimate authority of Christ’s Church. For example, on what authority do Protestants accept that the New Testament canon contains what it should, yet reject the canon of the Old Testament that was reaffirmed at Trent? I could go further along this line of thought, but I’m afraid it’s off-topic.

 

[Bwsherman]

Ron Conte’s reference link is very good on this.

Would appear there was so much disagreement between Church fathers … that at later dates additional councils made additional decisions based on tradition.

To quote them:

“So neither a fluctuating Septuagint nor an inexplicit NT conveys to us the exact extension of the pre-Christian Bible transmitted by the Apostles to the Primitive Church. It is more tenable to conclude to a selective process under the ‘guidance of the Holy Ghost’, and a process completed so late in Apostolic times that the NT fails to reflect its mature result regarding either the number or note of sanctity of the extra-Palestinan books admitted. To historically learn the Apostolic Canon of the OT, we must interrogate less sacred but later documents, expressing more explicitly the belief of the first ages of Christianity.”

… thus, looks like we must trust God to of delivered to us the critical inspired info by process of time, trial and error, and H.S. working thru centuries of history.

I think we are on the same page…yes?

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

The early Church Fathers generally ruled them outside of the Church canon … and not for use in forming dogmas.

Still, at Council of Trent [1500’s] … they got included.

So, now I’m converted to most Catholic ways of thinking … I’m starting to read them. Having heard the Protestant ‘protestations’ over them … [as works of satan] … I was prepared for the worst.

Read Tobit last night. I was pleasantly surprized … very interesting & inspirational, a great read and I didn’t come across anything too outlandish. Almsgiving is highly advised … 30 % in fact

All together these books cover as much material as the NT .

Should I read the rest of these books in order found in Catholic bible … or is there a preferred way/order of reading them? Which are the Catholic favorites ? Bel and Dragon ???

I hope the rest are as interesting as Tobit was

I actually like to read the deutero’s. I love Tobit. Fascinating read. I’ve read most of them and I get so much insight from them. My absolute favorite is 1st and 2nd Esdras, especially 2 Esdras. I find more common sense theology in that book than really any other book of Scripture, especially as it relates to the problem of evil and suffering. And I’m non-Catholic

Peace…

MW

 

[rogerh_57]

I know some Protestant’s view is that the books were left out because they did not follow the Tanakh and therefore Luther rejected them as part of scripture. Historical references and apocryphal only.