Who was the first ECF to reject the deutero's?

[Pwrlftr]

According to the dissertation of Alexander Andree ('05 Stockholm University) and Beryl Smalley [these are easily googled on line] ALL Glossae Ordinariae had the full Catholic OT, you know, the deuteros?

I didn’t say the glossa didn’t contain the deutero’s but it is common knowledge that the text included within the glossa rejected the deutero’s (ie. contained text that rejected the inspiration of the deutero’s).

I just finished listening to Gary Michuta in his debate with James White and even Gary realizes that the glossa contained text which rejected the deutero’s.

From newadvent.org
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. **The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. **

Need I remind you that Jerome rejected the deuteros.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I agree with this (forgive me if I have not read the subsequent exchanges regarding this, if any), but reading the quote from Eusebius, there is no indication that St. Melito rejected the deuterocanonicals. He did not mention them; it does not follow he rejected them. Same way that I would not mention in my listing of Presidents, say, Bush, that I do not consider him to be have become President. Again, it does not follow.

Yeah. He left the deutero’s out of his canon but that doesn’t mean he didn’t think they were canonical. By leaving them out, does that mean he thought they were canonical?

The trouble with your analogy is that we have a list of the presidents but at the time of Melito there was no “fixed” canon. Additionaly we have historians explaining that he accepted the Palestinian canon which did not include the duetero’s.

Do you have any evidence that Melito thought they deutero’s were canonical?

 

[jmcrae]

Do you have any evidence that Melito thought they deutero’s were canonical?

Why does it matter, since a) there was no defined canon at the time, and b) he was not attempting to define one; he was just saying,“Here’s the list of books that I use at Mass” after having been asked.

Not every Protestant uses every book of the Bible, either, since they don’t have a lectionary; a lot of them have certain favourites that they use all the time and others that they seldom if ever open.

It was only after the development of the lectionary (which was only possible after the canon of the Bible was defined) that Catholics began to read from every book of the Bible at Mass.

 

[sterryfamily]

You know, it’s interesting. I just finished listening to the Gary Michuta Debate with James White and Gary admitted several times that some ECF’s rejected the deutero’s.

I have no idea why you don’t understand the word “reject”. I even posted the definition of “reject” from Merriam Webster and you still seem to be having trouble.

It’s an inaccurate use of the language. Have I not made my position clear? And the implication to some is misleading. Other wording would be more appropriate. What’s your problem?

 

[Pwrlftr]

What you say is, of course, quite reasonable. However, what pwrlftr is trying to do is quite different. He is trying to get everyone here to agree, by default, by his suggestion, that any ECF might actually reject something outright without allowing for his accedence to the voice of the magisterium.
.

No the above isn’t in the least bit true.

I only asked a question, “Who was the first ECF to reject the deutero’s”.

I never mentioned anything about the “magesterium”. Anyway it wouldn’t matter since…

**The Tridentine decrees (Trent) from which the above list is extracted was the **first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.

Before Trent one could accept or reject the deuteros since Carthage and Hippo weren’t binding. Certainly no one at the time of Trent or afterwards would be considered a ECF.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Powerlifter:

If the Pope declares something to be binding upon the Universal Church, it is binding. (psst, it’s in the Bible)

If the Pope declares the canon to be binding, then it is dogma.

This is a matter of Faith and Morals.

It is NOT a matter of discipline (like a celibate priesthood or no meat on Fridays or saying the Rosary).

Robert

Robert,

If Carthage and or Hippo was dogmatic and therefore infallible, than why does the Catholic Encyclopedia say

The Tridentine decrees (Trent) from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.
a.) Who should I listen to, the Catholic Encyclopedia or you?

b.) How could Trent be the first if Carthage and Hippo were the first?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Because, as was the case with most councils, a challenge had arisen. Heretics were once again stirring the faithful against the Church, so the Church addressed the issue so that the people could know for sure what the Lord has to say about the issues at hand.

If as some here have claimed, that Hippo and Carthage settled the issue, why have a vote ? Why not just restate what was already proclaimed a millenium earlier?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Robert:

Cardinal Ximenes DID NOT reject the deuteros. He printed his Alcala Polyglot bible (OT) with St Jerome’s Vulgate in the center column (which includes the deuteros) with the Hebrew on one side and the Greek on the other. His preface jokingly referred to the side columns as the “two thieves next to Christ” (synagogue on the left and Eastern Church on the right, Catholic Church in the middle).

Robert,

You have only a part of the story.

The Polyglott Biblia complutensis was the bible that was published by Cardinal Ximenes in Spain in the early 16th century. It was published in 1520 with the sanction of pope Leo X.

The preface to this bible included comments that excluded the apocrypha from the canon. But this alone isn’t the whole story either as you would have known if you had taken a little more time to familiarize yourself with the facts.

The Biblia complutensis is a 6-volume work and the following is its bibliographical information: Biblia complutensis (Rome: Gregorian University Polyglott Press, 1983-1984), Edition Facsimileed.

There is a Preface to this work titled “Prologus ad lectorem”, or, “Preface to the reader”. In Preface 3b it states:
Atvero libri extra canonem quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit, Graecam tamen habent scripturam, sed cum duplici latina interpretatione, altera beati Hieronymi, altera interlineari de verbo ad verbum, eo modo quo in caeteris.

English translation:
As for the books outside the Canon, which the Church admits/receives more for the edification of the people than for the purpose of confirming the doctrines of the Church, they are in Greek, but with two Latin translations, one by blessed Jerome, the other and interlinear word for word, as elsewhere.
The books referred to that were listed as outside the canon were the books of the apocrypha.

The Preface gives a widely used quote from the Middle Ages which is derived from Jerome that the apocryphal books, while not included in the canon, were sanctioned to be read in the Churches for the purposes of edification.

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this:
“In his famous ‘Prologus Galeatus’, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament)."

I find this interesting because today as I was listening to the debate between James White and Gary Michuta this came up and Gary admitted that Ximenes’ work did in fact reject the deutero’s and that the pope of the time approved the work but Gary did point out that the popes approval was less than approving the cardinals opinion of the deutero’s.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Robert,

I found this at catholic.com about how Trent was the first infallible declaration fo the canon.

Q: Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven Deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible ?

A: No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.

The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon.

If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren’t in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?

If Trent was the first infallible declaration, how could Hippo and Carthage be the first?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Robert,

How about what Mark Shea has to say about Trent being the first dogmatic delcaration of the canon?
Shea:

Myth 5
The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent.

First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn’t defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ’s earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea’s definition. This doesn’t make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape — which included the deuterocanonical books — by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn’t dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.

 

[Milliardo]

Yeah. He left the deutero’s out of his canon but that doesn’t mean he didn’t think they were canonical. By leaving them out, does that mean he thought they were canonical?

Neither did he think of them as non-canonical; where is the basic evidence that tells us this? Quotes, anything? Aside from Eusebius’s.

The trouble with your analogy is that we have a list of the presidents but at the time of Melito there was no “fixed” canon.

Ah, you come back to your pet notion, which in the other thread time and again has been debunked; all you have to show us is this and that person did not agree to the canon. Hardly argument to say the canon was not fixed at that point. Until now people argue as to whether Christ is divine or not; by such an analogy then, Christ’s divinity must not be fixed nor certain, yet no serious Christian would think of that notion. Curiously though, you apply this criterion of some people questioning the canon as somehow evidence it is not yet fixed. We could go on with this to show how flawed your notion stands, but I would think one example should suffice to show the flaw of your argument.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Neither did he think of them as non-canonical; where is the basic evidence that tells us this? Quotes, anything? Aside from Eusebius’s.

Nope, only Eusebius’ quote but since Melito left out the deutero’s after investigating the canon of the Jews which rejected the deutero’s it would seem that is a clear rejection. Do you have any evidence that he accepted the deutero’s?

We also have the Catholic Encyclopedia saying his RESTRICTED canon consisted of only the PROTOCANONICAL books minus Esther. The protos ain’t the deutero’s. How much clearer can this be?

Maybe you think Jerome was the first to reject the deutero’s?

Milliardo:

Ah, you come back to your pet notion, which in the other thread time and again has been debunked; all you have to show us is this and that person did not agree to the canon. Hardly argument to say the canon was not fixed at that point. Until now people argue as to whether Christ is divine or not; by such an analogy then, Christ’s divinity must not be fixed nor certain, yet no serious Christian would think of that notion. Curiously though, you apply this criterion of some people questioning the canon as somehow evidence it is not yet fixed. We could go on with this to show how flawed your notion stands, but I would think one example should suffice to show the flaw of your argument.

Please go ahead and show me the canon was fixed in Melito’s time. By “fixed canon” I am referring to the canon which the church recognized. Please demonstrate that the canon was fixed in Melito’s time. If it was, I guess you catholics can’t say that we need your church to know the canon since Melito lived well before Carthage and Trent.

It’s funny, I listen to a lot of debates between Catholic apologists and various others and I don’t see any catholic apologist claiming the canon was fixed at the time of Melito.

How was the canon fixed at the time of Melito, I’m waiting anxiously for your reply.

 

[b_justb]

Pwrlftr:

Need I remind you that Jerome rejected the deuteros.

Please stop saying this. I’ll post this again from St. Jerome on the topic. He did NOT reject the deuterocanon:

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 Song 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 [AD 402]).

 

[Pwrlftr]

Please stop saying this. I’ll post this again from St. Jerome on the topic. He did NOT reject the deuterocanon:

The quote you provided is usually used to “prove” that Jerome changed his mind about rejecting the deutero’s not that he never rejected them. Obviously, if he changed his mind and accepted them, he at one point rejected them.

Now, Mark Shea wrote an article saying that Jerome at one point rejected the deutero’s but later accepted them. He was corrected and Mark changed his mind on this issue.

When I have time later today or later this weekend I will post more on this but the quote you have above doesn’t mean what you think it does as even Mark Shea found out.

 

[sterryfamily]

If as some here have claimed, that Hippo and Carthage settled the issue, why have a vote ? Why not just restate what was already proclaimed a millenium earlier?

Do you understand the purpose of councils? Do you understand the reason for defining dogma?

When the Church dogmatically defines any issue, she defines what was believed from the beginning. When has a definition ever changed a belief?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Do you understand the purpose of councils? Do you understand the reason for defining dogma?

When the Church dogmatically defines any issue, she defines what was believed from the beginning. When has a definition ever changed a belief?

Some here have claimed that this whole canon issue was settled at one of the earlier councils. If this is so, why would Trent “vote” on which books to include in the canon? Why not simply re-state the list of books from the earlier councils?

Can you explain why they voted as opposed to just re-stating the list from the earlier councils? Well, one reason is obviously that the canon dogmatically delcared at Trent doesn’t match identically with Carthage and Hippo but outside of that, why not just re-publish the list.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

The quote you provided is usually used to “prove” that Jerome changed his mind about rejecting the deutero’s not that he never rejected them. Obviously, if he changed his mind and accepted them, he at one point rejected them.

Well, gee, powerlifter, what in the hey do YOU think that quotation is saying???

Now, Mark Shea wrote an article saying that Jerome at one point rejected the deutero’s but later accepted them. He was corrected and Mark changed his mind on this issue.

This better be good, or I will continue to remind you and everyone about what you are asserting here.

Why? Because there is NOTHING on Shea’s website even remotely close to your assertion that St Jerome did NOT accept the deurerocanon.

Robert

 

[Pwrlftr]

This better be good, or I will continue to remind you and everyone about what you are asserting here.

Why? Because there is NOTHING on Shea’s website even remotely close to your assertion that St Jerome did NOT accept the deurerocanon.

Robert

Did you try searching the archives?

 

[jmcrae]

Pwrlftr;

The Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome were convened to examine the New Testament. They did so, and all three councils (which, as you say, were non-binding) came up with the same 27-book New Testament.

Perceiving that this was the work of the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Innocent I declared and defined that these 27 books, no more and no less, are the contents of the New Testament scriptures. He made no mention of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament in use by those three Councils was the 46-book Old Testament that Catholics today know and love, which had been handed down to them from the Apostles. Various theologians, including some ECFs, had questions about it, but it was never actually altered - no ECF ever actually left the deuteros out of his Bible, nor actually promulgated to the Church at large anything but the 46-book Old Testament.

At Trent, the Protestants having begun to promulgate a 39-book Old Testament, the Council responded by defining and declaring the 46-book Old Testament - the same one that had been in use throughout the whole world since Apostolic times.

 

[Milliardo]

Nope, only Eusebius’ quote but since Melito left out the deutero’s after investigating the canon of the Jews which rejected the deutero’s it would seem that is a clear rejection.

Again, none mention hardly qualifies for a rejection. I have my own list of favourite songs, and I do fail to mention all of them in that list. Doesn’t mean the songs I left out weren’t my favourites (and considering I have a lot of favourites, it’s inevitable that I will leave out a number of them at one time or the other).

Please go ahead and show me the canon was fixed in Melito’s time.

Where did you even get the notion that I was referring to Melito’s time? I was referring to your pet notion from another thread, which I see you still carry here on this thread.