Who reads the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonicals?

[djrakowski]

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 Historical references and apocryphal only.

Jesus gave authority to St. Peter. Those who remained Jewish, particularly the leaders of various sects who recognized their own O.T. canons rejected that authority. Therefore, any decisions they made about what to include in the canon (including the decisions made at the oft-cited Council of Jamnia) aren’t binding on Christians. Thus, Luther rejected Christian tradition as it relates to the determination of the canon, and accepted Jewish tradition instead.

Consider that the Council of Jamnia rejected the entire New Testament as well as the Deuterocanonicals. Why should we trust their judgment on the O.T. if they rejected the entire N.T.?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I was just going to order a KJV with them…looked at that last night on Amazon for that very purpose…I am so busy I do not know when I will get around to it.

 

[rogerh_57]

Jesus gave authority to St. Peter. Those who remained Jewish, particularly the leaders of various sects who recognized their own O.T. canons rejected that authority. Therefore, any decisions they made about what to include in the canon (including the decisions made at the oft-cited Council of Jamnia) aren’t binding on Christians. Thus, Luther rejected Christian tradition as it relates to the determination of the canon, and accepted Jewish tradition instead.

Consider that the Council of Jamnia rejected the entire New Testament as well as the Deuterocanonicals. Why should we trust their judgment on the O.T. if they rejected the entire N.T.?

Good information, thanks!

 

[BRB]

Thus, Luther rejected Christian tradition as it relates to the determination of the canon, and accepted Jewish tradition instead.

.?

There are problems with Jewish OT texts.

First, the Palestine Jewish canon appears to of been altered to remove writings that spoke of Jesus, and also those which were critical of the Jewish Priesthood, etc. They were aware of claims of Christians regarding Christ … and were very sensitive to their writings which supported claims of Christians.

On the otherhand, the Alexandrian Jewish Canon was very liberal, accepting many books of doubious authorship, those written in Greek [Hebrew was the gold standard].

Jerome tried to use Septuagint to obtain Latin translation of OT … but, found it hopeless task. He was forced to go to Palestine and use Hebrew & Aramaic OT texts to get reliable material to translate. Augustine was not happy about this … but, accepted Jerome’s explanation for why he used the Hebrew texts.

 

[djrakowski]

There are problems with Jewish OT texts.

First, the Palestine Jewish canon appears to of been altered to remove writings that spoke of Jesus, and also those which were critical of the Jewish Priesthood, etc. They were aware of claims of Christians regarding Christ … and were very sensitive to their writings which supported claims of Christians.

On the otherhand, the Alexandrian Jewish Canon was very liberal, accepting many books of doubious authorship, those written in Greek [Hebrew was the gold standard].

Jerome tried to use Septuagint to obtain Latin translation of OT … but, found it hopeless task. He was forced to go to Palestine and use Hebrew & Aramaic OT texts to get reliable material to translate. Augustine was not happy about this … but, accepted Jerome’s explanation for why he used the Hebrew texts.

A fair bit of explanation, thanks.

However, as discussed earlier, Jewish decisions on what to include in the canon have no business binding Christians. It makes precious little sense to accept the religious authority of those who rejected Christ, rather than the legitimate Christian authority established by Christ.

Regardless, all of the men you’ve mentioned submitted themselves to the authority of the Church and accepted the decisions they made regarding the canon.

I would also challenge the notion that “Hebrew was the gold standard” unless you add some qualifications to that statement. Was it the gold standard throughout the entire Mediterranean region? My study has led me to believe that the use of Greek was more prevalent if you include a broader cross-section of the Jewish world, that is, outside of Palestine. Or, was it the gold standard for some Jewish sects in some parts of the world?

 

[inthecloud]

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

Augustine actually blasted Jerome for following the canonical ideas of the Pharisees.

My favorite to read Wisdom, Chapter 2.

 

[juliamajor]

The pity of it is that most Catholics are unfamiliar with the Deuteros. when I taught them this year the majority of my students(adults) had never read them in their entirety.A lot were surprised how much dogma is in there.The are certainly easy to read and very interesting( more then I can say about Chronicles and much of Leviticus).It is very difficult to understand why some folks get all bent out of shape a that we read them at all? The standard reasons are fairly hilarious. The have the same problem with the MT and LXX as the do with KJV and any other bible. Silly rabbits!

 

[BRB]

The pity of it is that most Catholics are unfamiliar with the Deuteros…A lot were surprised how much dogma is in there.!

Dogma seen in them … or dogma of Church based ‘solely’ on them ?

While many of fathers disputed which of the Deuteros should or should not be allowed in secondary canon of Church … they all said dogmas of Church should not be drawn from them.

 

[djrakowski]

Dogma seen in them … or dogma of Church based ‘solely’ on them ?

While many of fathers disputed which of the Deuteros should or should not be allowed in secondary canon of Church … they all said dogmas of Church should not be drawn from them.

Right… there are also N.T. books from which no doctrine can be drawn (such as Jude and Philemon).

EDIT: and yet, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

 

[BRB]

Right… there are also N.T. books from which no doctrine can be drawn (such as Jude and Philemon).

Very interesting, had not heard this on these NT ones !
I do know Jude quotes from some heretical writings not accepted by Church.

Those 2 books are very short … not alot to base doctrines on anyways.

 

[djrakowski]

Very interesting, had not heard this on these NT ones !
I do know Jude quotes from some heretical writings not accepted by Church.

Those 2 books are very short … not alot to base doctrines on anyways.

Well, perhaps I’ve overstated - there’s nothing in these two short works that are contrary to Christian doctrine - it’s just that they don’t teach as much as exhort and/or encourage their audiences. There’s not much doctrine to learn from them in isolation from the rest of Sacred Scripture.

I’d not heard that Jude quotes from some ‘heretical writings not accepted by the Church.’ I’d love to see a source on that one (not that I’m doubting you, but it may prove helpful in my apologetics work).

 

[MarcoPolo]

While many of fathers disputed which of the Deuteros should or should not be allowed in secondary canon of Church … they all said dogmas of Church should not be drawn from them.

That is simply not true. Many Church fathers held them in unqualified regard in inspiration and value as the Protocanonical books. I recommend again Gary’s book that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Here is another good source.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I do know Jude quotes from some heretical writings not accepted by Church.

I don’t think “heretical” is the word, but “apocryphal.”

Here’s another article on this subject I recommend by apologist Mark Shea called 5 Myths about 7 Books. It is very good and addresses the most common criticisms of the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus and his Apostles read the Deuterocanonical Books as well as many Jewish clergy at the time of Jesus Christ.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

your history is skewed, although some ECFs disagreed, notably Jerome, they were indeed included in the early Church canon defined in the 300-400 era and translated as part of the Vulgate.

The book of Tobit is one of my favorite stories in all of literature and in fact its plot was the basis of a novel I wrote some years ago

 

[Janet_S]

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
Sirach and Wisdom are good too. Someone else mentioned this, but look at Wisdom 2:

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward. For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it. Wisdom 2: 12-24 (NAB)

 

[Janet_S]

Well, perhaps I’ve overstated - there’s nothing in these two short works that are contrary to Christian doctrine - it’s just that they don’t teach as much as exhort and/or encourage their audiences. There’s not much doctrine to learn from them in isolation from the rest of Sacred Scripture.

I’d not heard that Jude quotes from some ‘heretical writings not accepted by the Church.’ I’d love to see a source on that one (not that I’m doubting you, but it may prove helpful in my apologetics work).

Mark Shea talks about this in his article.

This is from the NAB
usccb.org/nab/bible/jude/jude.htm

Yet the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!” Jude 9

a reference to an incident in the apocryphal Assumption of Moses.

Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied also about them when he said, “Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict everyone for all the godless deeds that they committed and for all the harsh words godless sinners have uttered against him.” Jude 14-15

Cited from the apocryphal Book of Enoch 1:9.

 

[GailMac]

I thought I’d give a website that has a good article on the so-called “Council of Jamnia” which is what some protestants use as their reasons for rejecting certain books of the Old Testament. The article isn’t too long and pretty well sums it up. The Apologist is Steve Ray and he’s pretty credible. I think he’s done a few shows with the guys n gals here at CA.

catholicconvert.com/Default.aspx?tabid=83

Peace,

Gail

P.S. under his website is a list of many of his works. Chose the one that is titled "Bible: Who has the Correct Collection of Books, Catholics or Protestants? " Happy reading!

 

[Janet_S]

Here’s a site with Jerome’s Prologues for anyone who wants to read them in their entirety.
bombaxo.com/prologues.html

Jerome’s Prologues were included in the Vulgate translation of the Bible for centuries, but they were, of course, not part of inspired Scripture. It’s important to remember that when you’re reading the Bible, because sometimes the lines are blurred among introductions, footnotes and the scriptural text itself.

The idea of the deuterocanonical books as useful, but not to be the source of doctrine is an idea from Jerome and can be traced to one of his Prologues:

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF JEROME TO THE BOOKS OF SOLOMON
. . . Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.. . .

In the end, Jerome does include the deutercanonical books in his Vulgate translation at the request of Pope Damasus.

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO JUDITH

. . .Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request. . .,

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS

Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!

**I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in the Chaldean language into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. **. .

According to Gary Michuta’s book (mentioned before) Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, it was Jerome against the World, and the Apostolic Church did accept the deutercanonical books as inspired scripture:

Protestant apologists often attempt to make Jerome the spokesman for a large silent majority of knowledgeable Christians in his day; this opinion is supported by no evidence whatsoever. Protestant scholars have long admitted that Jerome was essentially alone in his opposition to the Deuterocanon. It was the product of his own (flawed, as we now know) scholarship. it was also a decisive break from the practice of the ancient Christian Church–something which would have given a humbler man serious pause. page 145

 

[juliamajor]

I will never understand the big hoo- ha some people make about the Deuteros.They are certainly important in areas of doctrines that came out of that time period and permeated the air of 1st century.Reading them and teaching them was a pleasure and insightfull for me. The trouble I had was finding good texts on the subject. Though always used by serious Biblical scholars- they are beginning to be taken seriously in other circles. AS far as 'II’m concerned they are invaluable in understanding the culture of the time and give a glimpse into the Qumran Essene mentality.(Dead Sea scrolls proved that these scripture were taken very seriously by at least a portion of the Jewish community of that time. Some scholars would actually like to see the LXX and the MT combined. despite what some KJV only folks believe , there is no such thing as a perfect text.