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

[Pwrlftr]

The problem I am having with the question you are asking is that is it akin to: The question assumes a fact that has not been established. The ECF did not reject the deuterocanon. Since the EFC did not reject the deuterocanon there is no answer to: To reject something you have to acknowledge it and then state firmly your rejection to it and most likely why you reject it. We don’t have that from any ECF.
Did you somehow miss my quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia? I can provide more catholic sources if you want but the fact remains all, well all but a few posters here, seem to agree that Melito rejected the deutero’s.

Live in denial if you want.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The ECF did not reject the deuterocanon. Since the EFC did not reject the deuterocanon there is no answer to: To reject something you have to acknowledge it and then state firmly your rejection to it and most likely why you reject it. We don’t have that from any ECF.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther.

I can provide other catholic sources if you want stating that Melito rejected the deutero’s.

 

[b_justb]

Pwrlftr:

I can provide other catholic sources if you want stating that Melito rejected the deutero’s.

Please provide just one. I haven’t seen you post ANY source that says St. Melito REJECTED the deuterocanon. You say it says that but the source does not say what you say it says. So yes, please provide just one source from St. Melito, or any other ECF, that says specifically “I reject the Books of bla bla because bla bla.” That’d be great to see if you can indeed find it.

Remember: De Nile is merely a river in Egypt.

 

[SyCarl]

Please provide just one. I haven’t seen you post ANY source that says St. Melito REJECTED the deuterocanon. You say it says that but the source does not say what you say it says. So yes, please provide just one source from St. Melito, or any other ECF, that says specifically “I reject the Books of bla bla because bla bla.” That’d be great to see if you can indeed find it.

Remember: De Nile is merely a river in Egypt.

Athanasius

1. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

1. 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,-Athanasius, (Letter 39)
   newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

John of Damascus

Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.-John of Damascus (Exposition of the Othodox Faith, Book 4)
newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

 

[b_justb]

SyCarl:

Athanasius

SyCarl - you didn’t quote all of 7 from Athanasius’ Letter 39, which says exactly the opposite of that which you are trying to affirm:

1. 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; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

The former is in ref to The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit which he says in tis quote to be part of the canon. The latter is in ref to and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd [of Hermes]. Your quote says exactly the opposite of what you are trying to make it say.

 

[SyCarl]

If you read the entire letter from paragraphs 4-7, it is apparent that when referring to the Canon in paragraph 7, Athanasius is referring to the books he spoke about in the previous paragraphs. He is not including anything from the list in paragraph 7 under the term former.

He includes Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith and Tobit with the Teachings of the Apostles and the Shepherd under the reference to latter which are only read.

This is the clear meaning because if you look at the books listed in paragraph 7, they are all grouped together with no means of determining of what he would include under former (canonical) and latter (non-canonical)

 

[jmcrae]

From newadvent.org

Apparently, Jerome wasn’t “down” w/ the deutero’s.

He was also heavily influenced by anti-Christian Jews in Palestine. He (like others after him) was under the mistaken impression that the Jews were still using the same canon they were using in the time of Christ.

The Church, however, received a 46-book canon from the Apostles, and has steadfastly stuck by that one - this is the one that I am referring to as the Alexandrian canon. It is this particular translation from which all four of the Gospel writers are quoting in our New Testament gospels.

Just one example: in Isaiah 7:14, in the Alexandrian edition (46 books), it says, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” - this is exactly what St. Matthew copies down, in Matthew 1:23 - in the Palestinian version (39 books), it says, “young woman;” not “virgin.”

 

[b_justb]

Thank you. These are excellent.

SyCarl:

Athanasius [No 7 Letter 39]

On this reference do you think it can be argued from the whole of the quote that St. Athanasius’ reference in the former and latter deal with the books he is siting? The former being in the canon as listed the deuterocanon and the latter the of apocryphal? I also note that St. Athanasius’ refers directly to “The Shepherd” [the Letter of Hermes] and this is not included in the Catholic Canon.

SyCarl:

John of Damascus [An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV) Ch 17]

Did you notice the next paragraph where he includes in the NT canon the letter(s) of Clement?

The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.

Again, thanks for the ref’s.

 

[SyCarl]

Thank you. These are excellent.
On this reference do you think it can be argued from the whole of the quote that St. Athanasius’ reference in the former and latter deal with the books he is siting? The former being in the canon as listed the deuterocanon and the latter the of apocryphal? I also note that St. Athanasius’ refers directly to “The Shepherd” [the Letter of Hermes] and this is not included in the Catholic Canon. Again, thanks for the ref’s.

If you read the whole dicourse on the Canon from paragraph 4 to 7, it becomes clear that what Athanasius refers to as “former” are the books that he lists in paragraphs 4 and 5. What he refers to as the “latter” are all the books listed in paragraph 7, including Wisodm of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Tobit and Judith. If the list he gives in the paragraph is meant to include both former and latter, he gives no idication as to what is to be included under either head as all the books are separated only by an “and”.

 

[Ilroy]

Uh…I went back and found another translation.

Regardless, it seems obvious that Melito rejected the deutero’s, does that bother you?

Do you know of another father who rejected the deutero’s from an earlier date?

I wonder…just where would the queen of the south have heard the wisdom of Solomon? I would think it would be in the book called Wisdom of Solomon…hmmmm

No, it truly doesn’t bother me. If you really dug deep you would find many differing opinions on what the whole canon consisted of. The key word here is OPINIONS though. Even St. Jerome had his opinion of what should be included in the canon…but when the authority of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit made the decision of the canon in the late 4th century, and the Church in 2 additional councils shortly after that confirmed the same canon St. Jerome accepted said canon. All these opinions that were going around did not and do not consist of the Magisterium.
Also, there are many who call themselves Catholic yet reject some of the teachings of The Church…we are not going to decide to change doctrine on those teachings just because some reject them…The Church does not decide things based on a vote or popular opinion.

I don’t know of any Church Fathers off hand that rejected the complete canon necessarily, but I’m sure there were some…I do know of one group that rejected them though…the Jewish council of Jamnia (sp?) rejected them because they were accepted by this pesky new sect called Christians who follow that blasphemer Christ.

 

[sterryfamily]

**Pwrlftr **- I think there is a misunderstanding going on between you and others here based solely on semantics. I am going to give my two cents to try and clear it up;

To the Catholics here, when an ECF says, to the effect, “this is what I believe the canon of Scripture to be”, it doesn’t translate to, “I reject any other possibility.” They always defferred to the Church as the final authority.

In fact, you know as well as everyone else here, that Church councils were called, to a large extent, to settle disputes. So, a discussion can be had on any topic, with various and even opposing views, but once the Church makes a determination, it ends the discussion and all are expected to accept the final determination. Even those who participated in the discussion with a view that opposed that final determination.

So, your question, perhaps, could be better worded as, “Who was the first ECF to QUESTION the deuteros”. That way, you could get a real discussion going.

To imply that any orthodox Christian ever “rejected” rather than “questioned” (awaiting an official Church decree on the matter) the inspiration of the Deuteros is an error. And, apparently, offensive to some.

 

[Pwrlftr]

**Pwrlftr **- I think there is a misunderstanding going on between you and others here based solely on semantics. I am going to give my two cents to try and clear it up;

To the Catholics here, when an ECF says, to the effect, “this is what I believe the canon of Scripture to be”, it doesn’t translate to, “I reject any other possibility.” They always defferred to the Church as the final authority.

In fact, you know as well as everyone else here, that Church councils were called, to a large extent, to settle disputes. So, a discussion can be had on any topic, with various and even opposing views, but once the Church makes a determination, it ends the discussion and all are expected to accept the final determination. Even those who participated in the discussion with a view that opposed that final determination.

So, your question, perhaps, could be better worded as, “Who was the first ECF to QUESTION the deuteros”. That way, you could get a real discussion going.

To imply that any orthodox Christian ever “rejected” rather than “questioned” (awaiting an official Church decree on the matter) the inspiration of the Deuteros is an error. And, apparently, offensive to some.

I appreciate your post but I do believe Melito lived before the councils of Carthage and Hippo so he would have been quite free to reject the deutero’s.

In fact, I believe Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the canon for your church so up until then one did not have to accept the canon as declared by either of the earlier councils.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther

Pwrlftr:

First: you quote from a VERY small section concerning the canon and PRESUME that since St Melito wrote of those Jewish scrolls (megillah) that the Catholic Church used in its liturgy circa 170 AD that this PROVES “that Melito rejected the deutero’s.”

Second: you even supply the snippet you claim bolsters your assertion; highlighted above.

The canon, dear heart, was NOT finalized until the Council of Rome in 382 AD (which you would have discovered in your research in the Catholic Encyclopedia if you continued to read that article) by Pope St Damasus.

THAT, pwrlftr, is quite a few CENTURIES before the Council of Trent where you, in an earlier post, made the ridiculous assertion that the canon was NOT completed until AFTER the Council of Trent.

To quote the OP from this thread:

“Live in denial if you want.”

Do some basic research research, brother, before trying to play ‘gotcha’ with us Catholics.

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Also, until Trent, one was quite free in matters regarding the canon.

Here is your goofy claim that the canon was not finalized nor complete, but “one was quite free in matters regarding” it.

So sophomoric, so off point, so [excuse the pun] LIGHTweight.

Robert

 

[jmcrae]

I appreciate your post but I do believe Melito lived before the councils of Carthage and Hippo so he would have been quite free to reject the deutero’s.

It was not possible for him to “reject” anything, since it had not even been set, yet. The Church of the time was using the 46-book canon of the Old Testament in the Liturgy.

 

[sterryfamily]

I appreciate your post but I do believe Melito lived before the councils of Carthage and Hippo so he would have been quite free to reject the deutero’s.

In fact, I believe Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the canon for your church so up until then one did not have to accept the canon as declared by either of the earlier councils.

And still, noweher does he say he “rejected” any of them.

And are you suggesting he would have not deferred to the Church’s authority on the matter?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Pwrlftr:

First: you quote from a VERY small section concerning the canon and PRESUME that since St Melito wrote of those Jewish scrolls (megillah) that the Catholic Church used in its liturgy circa 170 AD that this PROVES “that Melito rejected the deutero’s.”

Second: you even supply the snippet you claim bolsters your assertion; highlighted above.

The canon, dear heart, was NOT finalized until the Council of Rome in 382 AD (which you would have discovered in your research in the Catholic Encyclopedia if you continued to read that article) by Pope St Damasus.

THAT, pwrlftr, is quite a few CENTURIES before the Council of Trent where you, in an earlier post, made the ridiculous assertion that the canon was NOT completed until AFTER the Council of Trent.

To quote the OP from this thread:

“Live in denial if you want.”

Do some basic research research, brother, before trying to play ‘gotcha’ with us Catholics.

Robert

BUMP

 

[Pwrlftr]

Pwrlftr:

First: you quote from a VERY small section concerning the canon and PRESUME that since St Melito wrote of those Jewish scrolls (megillah) that the Catholic Church used in its liturgy circa 170 AD that this PROVES “that Melito rejected the deutero’s.”

Second: you even supply the snippet you claim bolsters your assertion; highlighted above.

The canon, dear heart, was NOT finalized until the Council of Rome in 382 AD (which you would have discovered in your research in the Catholic Encyclopedia if you continued to read that article) by Pope St Damasus.

THAT, pwrlftr, is quite a few CENTURIES before the Council of Trent where you, in an earlier post, made the ridiculous assertion that the canon was NOT completed until AFTER the Council of Trent.

To quote the OP from this thread:

“Live in denial if you want.”

Do some basic research research, brother, before trying to play ‘gotcha’ with us Catholics.

Robert

Robert,

You apparently don’t know your faith, pity.

The section I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly and unambiguously states that Melito rejected the deutero’s. The piece from the Catholic Encyclopedia says, rather unambiguously that “…Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther”. The protocanonicals don’t include the deuterocanonicals. So, what part of this is it that you don’t understand? I quote again from a Catholic source
Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case ***Melito’s restricted canon ***is explicable on another ground.

I really don’t see how you can deny Melito rejected the deutero’s. I can also supply more catholic sources for you if you wish.

As to the council of Carthage, go back and read my post. I said “In fact, I believe Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the canon for your church so up until then one did not have to accept the canon as declared by either of the earlier councils.” That doesn’t mean I wasn’t aware of Carthage or Hippo or any other council. It simply means that "Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the canon for your church ".

Neither Carthage or Hippo were ecumenical councils. If you would have taken the time to read the whole article at newadvent.org you would realize that Trent was…let’s see what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

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

You probably don’t know this but when you see “Tridentine decrees” they are referring to Trent. Trent was an ecumenical council and it was the first "infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal."

If as anyone with some knowledge of church history would know, Trent was the first dogmatic council to declare/define the canon, how could either Carthage or Hippo have dogmatically declared the canon before Trent…you know, since Trent was the first one?

 

[Pwrlftr]

And still, noweher does he say he “rejected” any of them.

And are you suggesting he would have not deferred to the Church’s authority on the matter?

The church had no set canon at the time of Melito.

If you don’t think Melito rejected the deutero’s, what do you make of the following article at the Catholic Encyclopedia?
Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case ***Melito’s restricted canon ***is explicable on another ground.

 

[Pwrlftr]

It was not possible for him to “reject” anything, since it had not even been set, yet. The Church of the time was using the 46-book canon of the Old Testament in the Liturgy.

Okay, he didn’t believe them to be inspired/canonical. Is that better?

BTW, I am assuming “he” is Melito.