T
tgGodsway
Guest
The answer is simple. Some of the content of those books, contradict with Apostolic teaching.
- Status
P
Phill
Guest
As well as Hebrews, Romans, and Jude.
P
Phill
Guest
What contradicts the apostles?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Well, for instance, the whole teaching on purgatory. The N.T. Apostles never taught it. They taught the exact opposite.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Having been “raised Catholic” (like my username implies), I can tell you what I was taught growing up, as well as what I learned when I got older.
- While not all Jews espoused to the same OT canon, the Pharisees did have an established canon prior to, and contemporary with, the time of Christ. The books in their canon were the same found in Catholic OTs today (source: Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers, YouTube: How did the Old Testament canon develop? (begins about 50 seconds into the video).
- When Jesus was talking to the Pharisees who were “lovers of money” (Luke 16:14-16), during the parable of the “rich man” & Lazarus, Jesus stated: “They [the Pharisees] have [Greek: have possession of] Moses & the Prophets [the OT canon]” (Luke 16:29).
- Since Pharisees & Protestants shared the same OT canon, this is one reason Protestants rejected the Deuterocanon.
- Luther learned the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the OT canon translated from the first century B.C. to the first century A.D.) did not include the Deuterocanon, but did include all of books in the “Hebrew Bible” (except for those books already translated into Aramaic - at least partially - such as Ezra-Nehemiah, which were originally one book, and Daniel).
- Throughout church history, councils (even Ecumenical Councils), Popes, Cardinals, Doctors of the Church, canonized saints, early church fathers, and other Christian writers right up to the Reformation including Erasmus, did not all agree on the canonicity and/or inspiration of the Deuterocanonicals. There were even doubts about its canonicity such as the book of Sirach even after the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1441) (source: EWTN: Fr. William Most, “Deuterocanonical Books in Canon of Scripture”).
- The “additions” to the books of Ezra-Nehemiah (ie: 1 Esdras) were included in the fourth century church councils of Hippo & Carthage and the Septuagint, but were not included in the Ecumenical Council of Trent & Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Same with the book of Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, which did not get added for another 400 years to later versions of the Vulgate. Baruch is not found in the 8th Century Codex Amiatinus (source: Catholic Answers Codex Amiatinus (third paragraph).
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
This may be true, however, when Jesus quoted from what we now call the O.T. he called it the word of God in support of whatever point He was making at the time.
Where did Jesus quote from these deuterocanonical books?.. please site me a record of it from the N.T.? Where did the Apostles or any gospel writer quote from these books, calling them the word of God?..
Where did Jesus quote from these deuterocanonical books?.. please site me a record of it from the N.T.? Where did the Apostles or any gospel writer quote from these books, calling them the word of God?..
S
Sursumcorda1
Guest
Catholics adopted the Septuagint Bible (Hebrew into Greek) canon which included the Deuterocanonical books which Jesus quoted a lot. Around 70s A.D., Jews had a Council where they adopted a canon (Masoretic text which Protestants adopted) which included only books which were originally written in Hebrew and rejected Deuterocanonical books because they had “dubious, non-Hebrew” origins. Interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that many of these deuterocanonical books were originally in Hebrew so their rejection was in error.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
@Phill
I was listening to a podcast from Trent Horn on Catholic Answers to which he stated:
“Jesus and the apostles quote the Old Testament a lot, and, no, there’s no direct quotation from the Deuterocanonical books in Scripture,” and “there’s also direct quotations from other Apocryphal books and non-Biblical works.” (source: Catholic Answers, Trent Horn Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (audio podcast) (begins at 19:47 & 22:01, respectfully.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Jesus, Himself never quoted directly from those books, even if they were collected in a larger volume called the deuterocanonical books. In other words, these books were a collection of both divinely inspired word infused with something of men. The fact that He never sited certain books as the word of God, should be telling to any unbias student of Christianity, in my view.
A
ahs
Guest
This tells us 2 things: that you haven’t actually read anything from the Deuterocanon, and you haven’t the faintest idea what “the whole teaching on Purgatory “ is.
You might want to look into what that is before you profess that the Apostles taught opposite of it.
Last edited:
Instead of listening to the few who bash Luther as a matter of practice here, I suggest you read Luther’s commentaries on the DC’s.
Luther and his group included all of the DC books, along with Prayer of Manasseh in his translation. Luther held them in high regard, but gives his reasons why he did not consider them on a level with either the attested books or the disputed books.
In his commentaries, the issue of doctrine rarely comes up. He holds his greatest dispute for 2 Macc, which he points out is at times in disagreement with 1 Macc, which he praises.
Typically Luther’s concern is with authorship of the DC’s, as it was with the Antilegomena (James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation), as well as the Jewish view of them.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
The Septuagint was originally limited to “the Law” (the 5 books of Moses), which Philo of Alexandria (A.D. 35) affirmed from the Letter of Aristaeus. The rest of the OT wasn’t added to the Septuagint until later, but the Deuterocanon did not get added until after the time of Jesus, because no NT writing referred to any of these books - specifically - as Scripture. The “Council” you are referring to was a Rabbinical school around A.D. 90, not a council, which did not determine what books belonged in the Jewish canon. Rather, they had adopted the canon of the Pharisees, which was identical to later Protestants. Also, later versions of the Septuagint, which was used for the fourth century church councils of Hippo & Carthage, also included the “additions” to Ezra-Nehemiah (ie: 1 Esdras) which are not in Catholic OTs today.
The only Deuterocanonical books found in the DSS were fragments of Tobit, Sirach, and a Greek version of the epistle of Jeremiah. The rest of the Deuterocanon were not found, but virtually all of the books from the “Hebrew Bible” were. Also, the DSS also included hundreds of books not found in any OT Bible, like the War & Copper Scrolls, and countless others. So, this is why defenders of the Deuterocanon don’t use the DSS as a good source to support its canonicity.
P
Phill
Guest
I think you misunderstood the post. I don’t have an issue with Luther. His teachings those may have helped with the removal of the books, but the point was i wanted to understand why people reject them today. Not who removed them
I understand, but some posts attacking Luther have already shown up, so that is my reason for the post.JonNC:
I think you misunderstood the post. I don’t have an issue with Luther. His teachings those may have helped with the removal of the books, but the point was i wanted to understand why people reject them today. Not who removed them
One of the problems with the question is Protestant isn’t a group. There are Christians whose tradition might be categorized as protestant who accept them, to one degree or another. And different groups who do not accept them may have various reasons for the determination of the canon.
There is also the fact that American non-Catholics may view them differently than others in Europe, but my sense is it has to do with the Hebrew scripture.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
No… I stand by my statement thank you.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
There are several OT books that Jesus never cited, for example Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Song of Songs, among others. As an unbiased student of Christianity, what do you deduce from that?
P
Phill
Guest
Right and that was my purpose, i didn’t mean to start a whole cluster in this thread. I’m just trying to see why people believe what they believe. So I’m trying to work my way back through history if that makes any sense at all
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Yes, I understand this, but He did quote from every major Prophet of the O.T. especially concerning His life and ministry. But secondly, those books show up nowhere in the Apostolic circle where doctrine was so crucial to the faith. The belief in prayers for the dead, for instance was a forbidden practice clearly forbidden in scripture, yet found in those books.
A
ahs
Guest
…because it’s bearing false witness…and now you can’t claim ignorance, which makes it intentional.tgGodsway:
This tells us 2 things: that you haven’t actually read anything from the Deuterocanon, and you haven’t the faintest idea what “the whole teaching on Purgatory “ is.
You might want to look into what that is before you profess that the Apostles taught opposite of it.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Okay, with all respect… please educate me on how Jesus and/or the Apostles taught the concept of purgatory. … And how this view became 1st. Century doctrine.
- Status