Would it matter if the Deuterocanonical books were in Protestant Bibles?

[Drawmack]

Just as a comment on your point number three.

Yes it is true that St Jerome questioned the validity of some of the books that The Church determined should be in the Bible. But what is MORE important to remember is that St Jerome sumitted his own personal will and interpretation to the Will of God as expressed through the decision of the Church in council.
It doesn’t matter that this priest or even a number of priests had concerns about their inclusion. What mattered was what as revealed to The Church by the Holy Spirit.

That is why for the next thousand years or so, the “deuteros” were contained in the Christian Bible.

Peace
James

I’ve read a descent amount on other threads where Catholics postulate that all of Protestantism is just a money making scheme. Well, let me ask this then. Isn’t it possible that Jerome and all those other priests did not conform their will so much as their pocket books by protecting their jobs?

 

[ChadS]

I’ve read a descent amount on other threads where Catholics postulate that all of Protestantism is just a money making scheme. Well, let me ask this then. Isn’t it possible that Jerome and all those other priests did not conform their will so much as their pocket books by protecting their jobs?

Why would you even take that approach? Has anybody insinuated something like that on THIS thread, regardless of what you’ve read elsewhere?

Why do Protestants find it so hard to believe that Catholics might just joyfully and willingly submit to the authority of the Catholic Church? It’s not that we’re all mindless unthinking robots, but on matters relating to faith and morals we trust and believe what the Church teaches about itself and thereby will defer to it’s judgment on certain matters.

ChadS

 

[COPLAND_3]

Your first quote is Widsom 2:12? I am just trying to be sure here

And the verse cited is from Barnabas and it says" Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us.”1504"

Do you have an easier to read format or am I missing something here??
I will go through all of them but am I reading the first one right??

When you click onto the links that I give you will notice the Scriptures are linked, and when you click on them they take you immediately to the spot that is quoted.

 

[BrianH]

When you click onto the links that I give you will notice the Scriptures are linked, and when you click on them they take you immediately to the spot that is quoted.

Ok, so was the first one correct?
Because those two do not seem to have anything to do with one another.
How do you establish a literary link between the DC and patristic writings? If it is the same string of words, or word used, that is equated to literary dependence or an allusion. In literature, there is somewhat of a science to it; I was wondering what criteria you use?

 

[BrianH]

Copland 3
Ok so I skipped over to your Judith section because the Wisdom one seemed…not convincing and so the very first one I look at this is what you have for Judith being cited by Clement??

Clement 10:1 Abraham, styled “the friend,”

So it gives four links right after that that refer to Abraham being friend (well I should say it gave four links but only three had anything to do with it). Understanding the first thing I think is how can you prove which one Clement had in mind…you cannot but the Judith one has absolutely nothing to do with it??

Isaiah 41:8 (American Standard Version)8 But thou, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend,

2 Chronicles 20:7 (American Standard Version)7 Didst not thou, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and give it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?

James 2:23 (American Standard Version)23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.

Judith 8:19For the which cause our fathers were given to the sword, and for a spoil, and had a great fall before our enemies.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I received the following via email today:

Here are some thoughts off the top of my head.

The fact is that we do not have any hardcore evidence as to the extent of the LXX. It is my opinion that the LXX of Jesus’ day probably included it, but it cannot be proved It began in the 3nd century BC with the Torah and expanded from there. The grandson of Sirach translated his grandfather’s work into Greek in Egypt around BC 150. We know that some of the Deuterocanon (LXX) was widely circulated in Jesus’ day. Fragments were found in Qumran and Masada. But there are no bound bibles (Codices) that exist from this period, so whether these texts were collected together is unknown.

I think that it is more likely that the LXX of Jesus’ day did include these writings for the following reasons:

1. The deuterocanon is alluded and referred to in the NT. Doesn’t prove they were part of the collection, but given the number of citations from the LXX it points in that direction.
2. Everyone acknowledges that the NT makes use of the words and terms of the LXX. The same is true for words that are only found in the Deuterocanon. Again, doesn’t prove it, but points in that general direction.*
3. Josephus, in his antiquities, uses the LXX and makes extensive use of 1 Maccabees. Suggesting, but not proving that it was part of that collection.
4. All the major codices of the LXX include the Deuterocanon (although for various reasons a codex may omit one or two books). Doesn’t prove it, but points to it.
5. The opposite is also true, no major Codex purposefully restricts itself to only the Protestant canon. If the LXX once existed in this form, why haven’t we found a “Palestinian Codex.” This is an argument from silence, but it is worth noting.
6. The exemplar of the Old Latin, which was replaced by Jerome’s Vulgate, appears to have come from a North African Jewish text of the LXX around the first century. As far as I can tell, no one disputes that the Old Latin recension always included the Deuterocanon. Indeed, some early fathers who relied on the OL quoted the from Deuterocanon suggesting that they were included within that collection.
7. The LXX was part of the texts used by the Jews between the time of Christ and the Bar Kochba revolt when the LXX was repudiated. Sirach and those books written after Sirach were repudiated at that time (suggesting that they were part of some sort of authoritative collection) and the Jews adopted the Hebrew MT. So, Judaism moved from a pretty wide LXX use to a strict MT use. However, books of the Deuterocanon were retained, in a dimished capacity after the change (Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, Judith) at least for a little while. If the Deuterocanon was not part of some authoritative collection of Scripture, and the only candidate the we know of is the LXX, then there doesn’t seem to be any reason why this collection of books would remain before fading out of use. If the Deuterocanon existed in the LXX prior to the Second Revolt (AD 132) then they must have be included during an earlier period, certainly within the first century.

• The point comes from memory. If you think it is important, I can dig up the original source and double-check my statement is accurate.

Probably the best argument against their inclusion at that time is Philo, but I think I debunked that line of thinking pretty well in my book. Nearly all of his citations are from the Torah leaving only a handful from the rest of the Bible. The omission of the Deuterocanon, even if they were part of the LXX of the time, would be expected.

I suppose if you put all the evidence on one side and all the opposing evidence on the other, the scale would lean a bit towards their inclusion. If the deuteros weren’t part of the LXX at that time, then I suppose these points would need to be explained.

These are a few of my thoughts given off the top of my head. I hope they help.

God Bless,

Gary

 

[Roy5]

Frankly, this debate doesn’t bring forth material that convinces me either way. And I don’t think it matters very much either way. As a ‘big tent’ Protestant I’m accustomed to fellow Christians having different views, and it doesn’t threaten my faith. In fact, I rather enjoy hearing new interpretations of scripture and new arguments for this or that. Plus - well, in all honesty, just because the Bible says something doesn’t mean I accept it. I think of colonial Salem, for example, and those sincere Puritans who took “suffer not a witch to live” seriously. There is plenty in the Bible that needs intelligent questioning. I am not one who believes that God guided the pens of its authors and saved it from error. And I don’t believe that God saves any church from error, either.

Now, to the ex-Methodist who said that he never recalls the apocryphial books being used, etc. The last Methodist hymnal (not the current one - I'd have to check that one out), but the one in use from roughly 1964-1984 included (in the back) responsive readings from Judith, Ecclesiasticus, and maybe other apocryphal books. I'd have to recheck as my memory is flawed. 

 The real issue, of course, is authority. Millions of Catholics are ready to accept the authority of the church in all such matters. Fine. But millions don't. I was surprised recently to read a Pew poll which found Americans Protestants of all kinds opposed to gay marriage by a tiny margin (mainline) or by a large majority (evangelical), while Catholics, by a 45-43 margin favored it! I also have noted that polls show that a large majority of Catholics also want the clergy to choose marriage if they wish to. This suggests to me that the laity doesn't fall in line that easily. The fact that 30,000,000 Americans are ex-Catholics says something, too. 

   Mainline Protestants like myself are less inclined to get in an uproar over theological and other differences. "Think and let think" was the wise advice of Wesley. "If you love God as I love God, let us join hands" - or words to that effect, also attributed to Wesley. Sadly I detect the spirit of the Taliban among some CAF posters. There is only one way to think and that's the way my church and I think! And if we ran things you would behave as we would insist you behave! To me, the world is too majestic and mammoth and marvelous and mysterious to be so cocksure, so I live by simple faith that life makes sense, that God is merciful, and that this world is not my home. 

  My guess is that beyond much hardcore religious dogmatism - whether Catholic or Protestant - is the human ego plus human anxiety and insecurity. Many need the confidence that comes from the assurance that they embrace the true faith. As for myself, I delight in the freedom to contemplate any number of theological positions on any number of key issues and feel neither guilty nor nervous doing so. My salvation doesn't depend upon theology or liturgy or sacraments or even my righteousness (or lack thereof). It comes from the grace of God as demonstrated through the gift and sacrifice of Christ. "Amazing grace...." That wonderful hymn written by a former slave-ship captain who became a minister of the gospel and worked for abolition.

  God bless Catholics, Protestants, people of every creed, color and country. Let's make our religion a bridge and not a barrier.

    PS  Suggested reading. "The Case for God" by former nun Karen Armstrong. What a brilliant woman with a wonderful talent for writing and with an unusual understanding of different faiths. I'm finishing the book and it's a delightful read.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Copland 3
Ok so I skipped over to your Judith section because the Wisdom one seemed…not convincing and so the very first one I look at this is what you have for Judith being cited by Clement??

Clement 10:1 Abraham, styled “the friend,”

So it gives four links right after that that refer to Abraham being friend (well I should say it gave four links but only three had anything to do with it). Understanding the first thing I think is how can you prove which one Clement had in mind…you cannot but the Judith one has absolutely nothing to do with it??

Isaiah 41:8 (American Standard Version)8 But thou, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend,

2 Chronicles 20:7 (American Standard Version)7 Didst not thou, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and give it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?

James 2:23 (American Standard Version)23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.

Judith 8:19For the which cause our fathers were given to the sword, and for a spoil, and had a great fall before our enemies.

Keep in mind, I am not the one who has indexed these as being citations, it was Protestant translators of the Church Fathers (edited by Phillip Schaff), I have 3 published collections here at home, one is from Phillip Schaff, while I have Lightfoot’s and Catholic University of America Press, and they all are the same.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Frankly, this debate doesn’t bring forth material that convinces me either way. And I don’t think it matters very much either way.

It doesn’t matter to you if your Bible is missing part of divine revelation God wanted transmitted to His people? I find that assertion strange…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Probably the best argument against their inclusion at that time is Philo, but I think I debunked that line of thinking pretty well in my book. Nearly all of his citations are from the Torah leaving only a handful from the rest of the Bible. The omission of the Deuterocanon, even if they were part of the LXX of the time, would be expected.

I suppose if you put all the evidence on one side and all the opposing evidence on the other, the scale would lean a bit towards their inclusion. If the deuteros weren’t part of the LXX at that time, then I suppose these points would need to be explained.

These are a few of my thoughts given off the top of my head. I hope they help.

God Bless,

Gary

[/INDENT]

That book, which I find the most exhaustive treatment on the Canon, and also the single best apologetic book published in the 21st century I’ve read is Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta. I highly recommend that anyone serious about this subject read that book.

 

[BrianH]

Keep in mind, I am not the one who has indexed these as being citations, it was Protestant translators of the Church Fathers (edited by Phillip Schaff), I have 3 published collections here at home, one is from Phillip Schaff, while I have Lightfoot’s and Catholic University of America Press, and they all are the same.

You linked these citations on YOUR website. So do you vouch for them or not?

 

[BrianH]

That book, which I find the most exhaustive treatment on the Canon, and also the single best apologetic book published in the 21st century I’ve read is Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta. I highly recommend that anyone serious about this subject read that book.

amazon.com/Canon-Debate-Lee-Martin-McDonald/dp/1565635175#noop

Gary Michuta’s book is written for a general audience (Ie apologetic and certainly not exhaustive); as even he would probably admit. The book I referenced…not so much. It is written for the scholars in the crowd…not that I am one

 

[COPLAND_3]

You linked these citations on YOUR website. So do you vouch for them or not?

Yes. I’m just letting you know that it was not me who picked out the citations so you don’t think there was a Catholic bias involved, that’s all.

 

[Drawmack]

Why would you even take that approach? Has anybody insinuated something like that on THIS thread, regardless of what you’ve read elsewhere?

Why do Protestants find it so hard to believe that Catholics might just joyfully and willingly submit to the authority of the Catholic Church? It’s not that we’re all mindless unthinking robots, but on matters relating to faith and morals we trust and believe what the Church teaches about itself and thereby will defer to it’s judgment on certain matters.

ChadS

I don’t find that hard to believe. I also don’t see anything you have written here as even attempting to refute what I asked.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

I don’t find that hard to believe. I also don’t see anything you have written here as even attempting to refute what I asked.

Because what you said was so off topic and weird there is nothing to “refute”

 

[BrianH]

Yes…

Then could you address the two I cited please?

 

[MarcoPolo]

amazon.com/Canon-Debate-Lee-Martin-McDonald/dp/1565635175#noop

Gary Michuta’s book is written for a general audience (Ie apologetic and certainly not exhaustive); as even he would probably admit. The book I referenced…not so much. It is written for the scholars in the crowd…not that I am one

What did you think of Gary’s book?

 

[COPLAND_3]

BrianH,

Let me go ahead and do my own list so that I don’t have to rely on that index, I too found a couple of questionable things as well, good work on your part to catch them!

1 Clement 55:4 The blessed Judith, when the city was besiged, asked permission of the elders to be allowed to go into the foreigners camp. 55:5 By exposing herself to danger she went our for love of her country and of the people who were sieged, adn the Lord delivered Holophernes into the hand of a woman. (Judith 8)

Another passage that is cited is 1 Clement 59:4 for Judith 9:11, but that passage is also related to a few others as well, and I need to see the actual Greek text of Clement that is not Lightfoot’s because he does not always give Clement’s actual citation. So I need to look into this one further.

Tobit 13:6,10 are referenced by Clement in 61:2 as “King of the ages.”

Tobit 4:11 is quoted by St. Polycarp in 10:2, “Almsgiving frees from death.”

I will have to get back to this discussion tomorrow since it getting to be past my bedtime.

 

[BrianH]

What did you think of Gary’s book?

Randy might email him and tell him!!

I cannot do a book review in 100 words or less but I will try. In general, I believe it is a good to very good book. However, it is apologetics and not an attempt to be impartial in looking at the evidence like the Canon Debate. There is a huge difference between writing for an academic journal and engaging in effective apologetics. Make no mistake, it is good apologetics.

 

[BrianH]

I received the following via email today:

Here are some thoughts off the top of my head.

The fact is that we do not have any hardcore evidence as to the extent of the LXX. It is my opinion that the LXX of Jesus’ day probably included it, but it cannot be proved It began in the 3nd century BC with the Torah and expanded from there. The grandson of Sirach translated his grandfather’s work into Greek in Egypt around BC 150. We know that some of the Deuterocanon (LXX) was widely circulated in Jesus’ day. Fragments were found in Qumran and Masada. But there are no bound bibles (Codices) that exist from this period, so whether these texts were collected together is unknown.

I think that it is more likely that the LXX of Jesus’ day did include these writings for the following reasons:

1. The deuterocanon is alluded and referred to in the NT. Doesn’t prove they were part of the collection, but given the number of citations from the LXX it points in that direction.
2. Everyone acknowledges that the NT makes use of the words and terms of the LXX. The same is true for words that are only found in the Deuterocanon. Again, doesn’t prove it, but points in that general direction.*
3. Josephus, in his antiquities, uses the LXX and makes extensive use of 1 Maccabees. Suggesting, but not proving that it was part of that collection.
4. All the major codices of the LXX include the Deuterocanon (although for various reasons a codex may omit one or two books). Doesn’t prove it, but points to it.
5. The opposite is also true, no major Codex purposefully restricts itself to only the Protestant canon. If the LXX once existed in this form, why haven’t we found a “Palestinian Codex.” This is an argument from silence, but it is worth noting.
6. The exemplar of the Old Latin, which was replaced by Jerome’s Vulgate, appears to have come from a North African Jewish text of the LXX around the first century. As far as I can tell, no one disputes that the Old Latin recension always included the Deuterocanon. Indeed, some early fathers who relied on the OL quoted the from Deuterocanon suggesting that they were included within that collection.
7. The LXX was part of the texts used by the Jews between the time of Christ and the Bar Kochba revolt when the LXX was repudiated. Sirach and those books written after Sirach were repudiated at that time (suggesting that they were part of some sort of authoritative collection) and the Jews adopted the Hebrew MT. So, Judaism moved from a pretty wide LXX use to a strict MT use. However, books of the Deuterocanon were retained, in a dimished capacity after the change (Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, Judith) at least for a little while. If the Deuterocanon was not part of some authoritative collection of Scripture, and the only candidate the we know of is the LXX, then there doesn’t seem to be any reason why this collection of books would remain before fading out of use. If the Deuterocanon existed in the LXX prior to the Second Revolt (AD 132) then they must have be included during an earlier period, certainly within the first century.

• The point comes from memory. If you think it is important, I can dig up the original source and double-check my statement is accurate.

Probably the best argument against their inclusion at that time is Philo, but I think I debunked that line of thinking pretty well in my book. Nearly all of his citations are from the Torah leaving only a handful from the rest of the Bible. The omission of the Deuterocanon, even if they were part of the LXX of the time, would be expected.

I suppose if you put all the evidence on one side and all the opposing evidence on the other, the scale would lean a bit towards their inclusion. If the deuteros weren’t part of the LXX at that time, then I suppose these points would need to be explained.

These are a few of my thoughts given off the top of my head. I hope they help.

God Bless,

Gary

He is a class act.