A
Annie
Guest
I did not know the Church based doctrine on Scripture: I thought it was the other way around.
- Status
S
steve-b
Guest
Re: terms
Apocrypha ≠ scripture.
the 7 books in the OT we have in Catholic bibles, but Protestants removed from their bibles, we call those books Deuterocanon, because they are scripture
Protestants call those 7 books apocrypha because that’s what Luther called them, ergo he removed those 7 books from the status of scripture in his bible, to not scripture status, and all of Protestantism have removed those books ever since as well.
As others have offered, you’ll find those books in Catholic bibles.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
That is incorrect
Pope Damasus I, in 382, at the council of Rome, decreed a 73 book canon, by name of each book. The canon we have today. Two local councils after Rome, Hippo and Carthage, also validated that canon, as well as the ecumenical council of Florence…
Ergo by Florence, that canon we have today had already been in place for 1059 yrs.
Last edited:
L
Lysander
Guest
It depends on what meaning of Apocrypha you are using. If you mean the Deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and parts of Esther and Daniel) these are consider cannon in the Catholic Church and have equal weight. Now if you mean Apocrypha like the Greek Orthodox faith (Maccabees 3 and 4 to name a few) than they aren’t Cannon. Originally Luther left the Deuterocanonical books in the appendix, because his followers were originally Catholic and it would be too much to change it (also originally Luther quoted some of these books in his argument Father Eck was able to turn the argument against him using Maccabees 2). Later on in Protestant history they didn’t have this problem and they removed the appendix, because these books help support Catholic Doctrine.
Last edited:
L
Lysander
Guest
Actually Saint Jerome was against the Deuterocanical books, but the Catholic world and Pope disagreed with him. He relented and included them in his Vulgate translation of the Bible.
po18guy
Well-known member
Those seven books were in regular use, somewhere in the ancient Church, since day1. Remember that the ancient Church had no communication except by evangelists physically traveling to the ends of the known earth, or letters hand carried. The Church was under threat of death if found out, separated by great distances, rivers, mountain ranges, the Mediterranean, etc. and not all local communities had all of the books at the same time. But, all seven of the books in question were in pre-Christian Jewish use, then Christian use.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Although this is a common assumption, this cannot be backed up historically.
For one, what Hippo & Carthage defined as “1 Esdras” was the additions to Ezra-Nehemiah, and “2 Esdras” was Ezra-Nehemiah, respectfully. Carthage of 397 omitted the book of Revelation, mainly from the rejection of it from Eastern Churches due to its wide use in the Montanist cults, which is why it was later ratified in the later Council of Carthage of 419 & added back in, since it was in Jerome’s Vulgate in 405.
None of them, including the Council of Rome included Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah. Later evidence of this is Baruch was not found in the Codex Amiatinus of A.D.700. It would not be added to later versions of the Vulgate until sometime in the 9th Century. This means the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of 787 did not include Baruch in its canon. The next Ecumenical Council to address the canon with the Biblical list in Catholic OTs today was Florence of 1441. However, Cardinals like Cajetan & Ximenes rejected the Deuterocanonical books like Sirach & favored the “smaller” canon that Luther adopted, despite rejecting the movement of the Reformers. Even Erasmus favored the “smaller” canon of the Reformers, despite rejecting the movement itself. Jerome’s original Vulgate of 405 also did not include Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah. It was added to later versions 4 centuries later.
So, Trent was the first Ecumenical Council to “define” what the previous Ecumenical Council (Florence in 1441) listed, but didn’t “officially” define.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Except for Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, which wasn’t added to later versions of the Vulgate until the 9th century. Plus, what the fourth century councils defined as “1 & 2 Esdras” (the additions to Ezra-Nehemiah, and Ezra-Nehemiah, respectfully) was not the same thing as Ezra and Nehemiah in the later Ecumenical Councils of Florence & Trent. See my reply to steve-s in post #28.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Since the Orthodox didn’t schism from the West until 1054, one would expect them to include the Deuterocanonical books which were - by then - widely accepted, but not “defined” until Trent. Plus, the Orthodox include other books in their canon, not found in Catholic OTs, which they say they base on the Septuagint. Books like 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, etc which were found in 1 Old Latin Bible & 23 copies of the Septuagint prior to the fourth century church councils.
So, while you are correct, this was not a “Catholic invention,” nonetheless, as Catholic author Gary Michuta stated not long ago, the Septuagint was a liturgical text that kept getting adding to after the first century.
As were other non-Deuterocanonical books, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contained hundreds of non-Catholic books found in Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Bibles.
The Catholic Church does not reject Scripture in terms of doctrinal issues. In fact, it does base a lot of its doctrines on Scripture, like the virgin birth, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, etc. It just doesn’t base doctrine “solely” on Scripture.
Yes, as well as other books not found in the Catholic OT as well, like 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch, etc, 1 & 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, etc - some of these books found in early versions of the Septuagint prior to the fourth century church councils.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Something like 91% of NT quotes attributed to our Lord are traceable to the Septuagint collection - which included the Deuterocanonical books.
Let’s face it: the “problem” with the Deuterocanon is that they conflicted with a certain reformer’s personal theology. Although he did not remove them, and did translate them for his 1545 ‘Luther Bibel’, he segregated them in a type of theological apartheid.
One popular apologetic regarding the Deuterocanon is:
Let’s face it: the “problem” with the Deuterocanon is that they conflicted with a certain reformer’s personal theology. Although he did not remove them, and did translate them for his 1545 ‘Luther Bibel’, he segregated them in a type of theological apartheid.
One popular apologetic regarding the Deuterocanon is:
S
steve-b
Guest
Scroll down to Decree of Damasus, a.d. 382, council of Rome, and you will see the canon of scripture HEREsteve-b:
Although this is a common assumption, this cannot be backed up historically.
For one, what Hippo & Carthage defined as “1 Esdras” was the additions to Ezra-Nehemiah, and “2 Esdras” was Ezra-Nehemiah, respectfully. Carthage of 397 omitted the book of Revelation, mainly from the rejection of it from Eastern Churches due to its wide use in the Montanist cults, which is why it was later ratified in the later Council of Carthage of 419 & added back in, since it was in Jerome’s Vulgate in 405.
None of them, including the Council of Rome included Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah. Later evidence of this is Baruch was not found in the Codex Amiatinus of A.D.700. It would not be added to later versions of the Vulgate until sometime in the 9th Century. This means the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of 787 did not include Baruch in its canon. The next Ecumenical Council to address the canon with the Biblical list in Catholic OTs today was Florence of 1441. However, Cardinals like Cajetan & Ximenes rejected the Deuterocanonical books like Sirach & favored the “smaller” canon that Luther adopted, despite rejecting the movement of the Reformers. Even Erasmus favored the “smaller” canon of the Reformers, despite rejecting the movement itself. Jerome’s original Vulgate of 405 also did not include Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah. It was added to later versions 4 centuries later.
So, Trent was the first Ecumenical Council to “define” what the previous Ecumenical Council (Florence in 1441) listed, but didn’t “officially” define.
(Note: Some books of the Bible have gone under more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
There are Two Apocryphae 
Those books considered Apocrypha by The Catholic Church
And
Those considered Apocrypha by Protestant communities
They differ
They’re not hard to find.
Those books considered Apocrypha by The Catholic Church
And
Those considered Apocrypha by Protestant communities
They differ
They’re not hard to find.
po18guy
Well-known member
The Catholic apocrypha have been preserved only “lest they altogether perish.” They are the exception which proves the rule of inspiration. As applied to the Deuterocanon, apocrypha is a pejorative term used by European rebels. Unfortunately, it has stuck.
A convenient excuse for the denigration of Sacred Scripture was that the Hebrew authorities did not accept them - they having been composed in Greek rather than Hebrew. But, that is not strictly true. The greater factor is that their theological content did not agree with the European “reformers.”
So, they were sent to the back of the bus, then out the door. Maybe its just me, but that’s no way to treat God’s word.
They say: “But it’s not God’s word.”
I say: 'You’d better hope and pray that it is not…"
A convenient excuse for the denigration of Sacred Scripture was that the Hebrew authorities did not accept them - they having been composed in Greek rather than Hebrew. But, that is not strictly true. The greater factor is that their theological content did not agree with the European “reformers.”
So, they were sent to the back of the bus, then out the door. Maybe its just me, but that’s no way to treat God’s word.
They say: “But it’s not God’s word.”
I say: 'You’d better hope and pray that it is not…"
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
As my name suggests, I was “RaisedCatholic” so I am well-aware of the Council of Rome, as well as the other fourth and fifth century church councils. But again if you look at the actual council of Rome from the link you posted, it lists Jeremiah and lamentations separately (despite originally being one book), but it does not list Baruch or the epistle of Jeremiah. It also lists all the other books in the Deuterocanon separately, and even the 12 Minor Prophets separately by name. But Baruch and the epistle are omitted, because they were NOT part of Jeremiah originally, but written centuries later after the completion of the Hebrew Bible.
That is how they went by the time of the Reformation in the 16th Century (Cardinal Cajetan listed Ezra and Nehemiah that way, even though he espoused to the smaller Protestant Bible embraced by Jerome). But in the fourth century councils, 1 Esdras included “additions” to Ezra not found in the canonical book, or anywhere else in the OT, including the Deuterocanon. 2 Esdras was simply Ezra-Nehemiah, because it was originally a single book. You see this even in the listings of books in ECFs during this time. Gary Michuta (“Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger”) conceded this historical fact during his debate with James White in 2004. His response to why Trent rejected the “additions” to Ezra-Nehemiah (1 Esdras) even though Hippo and Carthage of 397 included them was “Trent “passed over’ them, and left the issue open.” You can see the debate on YouTube.
The Great Debate IX - Michuta vs White (around the 1:39:15 mark)
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
This comes from Jerome’s statement where he said while the church in his day read the Deuterocanon (what Protestants call “Apocrypha”), the church back then did not base doctrine on these books, thus Jerome calling them “Apocrypha.” St. Pope Gregory the Great also rejected them.
In the 17th Century, a Jewish convert to Catholicism named Sixtus of Siena broke down various writings into three tiers. The first was the Proto Canon, Which protestants call the Hebrew Bible. The second was the Deuterocanon which protestants call apocrypha. The third were books both Catholics and protestants consider apocrypha. As you can see even during the reformation there were Catholics who separated the DeuteroCanon from the Proto canon, Instead of blending them together. There were even Cardinals during this time like Cajetan and Ximenes who preferred the smaller Protestant Bible as well as Erasmus who provided a fresh Greek translation of the New Testament which Luther used for his German New Testament. Like the others Erasmus preferred the smaller Canon.
S
steve-b
Guest
Whensteve-b:
As my name suggests, I was “RaisedCatholic” so I am well-aware of the Council of Rome, as well as the other fourth and fifth century church councils. But again if you look at the actual council of Rome from the link you posted, it lists Jeremiah and lamentations separately (despite originally being one book), but it does not list Baruch or the epistle of Jeremiah. It also lists all the other books in the Deuterocanon separately, and even the 12 Minor Prophets separately by name. But Baruch and the epistle are omitted, because they were NOT part of Jeremiah originally, but written centuries later after the completion of the Hebrew Bible.
[snip for space]
The Great Debate IX - Michuta vs White (around the 1:39:15 mark)
you wrote
"Although this is a common assumption, this cannot be backed up historically"
Then
you quote James White, a historic anti Catholic “Protestant” , to support YOUR argument
Then
I won’t waste my time with White because of who (James White) is.
and since you want him, to represent your view,
then may I use Paul’s instruction to Bp Titus, as a response
links are operational
Titus 3:10-11
“As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν hairetikos , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted ἐξέστραπται and sinful; he is self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος .”
Do you see who Paul is talking about?
Since we are talking about history, we need to be careful who we pay attention to for our information. The Catholic Church was there from the beginning… I wasn’t there. You weren’t there, Nor was White.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Jerome included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate.nfinke:
This comes from Jerome’s statement where he said while the church in his day read the Deuterocanon (what Protestants call “Apocrypha”), the church back then did not base doctrine on these books, thus Jerome calling them “Apocrypha.” St. Pope Gregory the Great also rejected them.
AND
We know Jerome ultimately accepted the 7 books personally as scripture.
AND
did Pope Gregory the Great, reject those books?
We have to ask
Where did HE change the canon? What book(s) specifically did he eliminate from the canon?
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
No, I don’t. Instead of playing 20 questions, why don’t you come out and tell me.
The only reason I cited James White was - again - in the debate Gary Michuta (who is Catholic) AGREED with him that 1 Esdras was in the 4th Century Church Councils of Hippo & Carthage, but not in the much later Ecumenical Church Councils of Florence & Hippo. So, how do you account for 1 Esdras being in these early councils, but not in these later ones?
So, yes, we weren’t there & we need to be careful who we pay attention to. But in the same breath, we must be careful not to ignore someone just because they don’t share the same theology as we do.
Actually, no, he didn’t. He did not include Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, which would not be “added” to later versions of the Vulgate for another 400 years. And, although he included the rest of the so-called “Deuterocanon” (even though that term would not exist until the 17th Century), he was very verbal that he did not “accept” them personally and he said the church in his day did not establish doctrine on them.
He didn’t accept any of the Deuteros as inspired, canonical Scripture. This didn’t mean he “changed” the canon, since a Pope does not have that authority, like an Ecumenical Council does (like Florence & Trent, which “changed” the canon, which the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of 787 did not include the book of Baruch).
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
There’s no mystery here. Did you open the links I gave?steve-b:
No, I don’t. Instead of playing 20 questions, why don’t you come out and tell me.
RaisedeCatholic:
Already answered you back HERE at the end of the post
Baruch was there. Baruch Is There, Just Sometimes As Part of Jeremiah | Catholic Answers
- You need to provide references properly referenced for your statements
- You don’t understand the authority the pope has, and that of Councils
Please show
where the 2nd Ecumenical council addressed the canon of scripture by name of books
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Yes, I did. All it is a link to lexicons with meanings of the words you italicized & bolded in blue. So, again, no, I don’t know who Paul is talking about. Will you tell me now, who you have in mind?
- Status