Protecting God’s Word From “Bible Christians”

“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught,
either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
~ St. Paul to the Thessalonians

A former student of mine is thinking of becoming a Catholic, and she had a question for me. “I don’t understand the deuterocanonical books,” she ventured. “If the Catholic faith is supposed to be a fulfillment of the Jewish faith, why do Catholics accept those books and the Jews don’t?” She’d done her homework, and was troubled that the seven books and other writings of the deuterocanon had been preserved only in Greek instead of Hebrew like the rest of the Jewish scriptures—which is part of the reason why they were classified, even by Catholics, as a “second” (deutero) canon.

My student went on. “I’m just struggling because there are a lot of references to those books in Church doctrine, but they aren’t considered inspired Scripture. Why did Luther feel those books needed to be taken out?” she asked. “And why are Protestants so against them?”

The short answer sounds petty and mean, but it’s true nonetheless: Luther jettisoned those “extra” Old Testament books—Tobit, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the like—because they were inconvenient. The Apocrypha (or, “false writings”), as they came to be known, supported pesky Catholic doctrines that Luther and other reformers wanted to suppress—praying for the dead, for instance, and the intercession of the saints. Here’s John Calvin on the subject:

Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs?

However, the deuterocanonical literature was (and is) prominent in the liturgy and very familiar to that first generation of Protestant converts, so Luther and company couldn’t very well ignore it altogether. Consequently, those seven “apocryphal” books, along with the Greek portions of Esther and Daniel, were relegated to an appendix in early Protestant translations of the Bible.

Eventually, in the nineteenth century sometime, many Protestant Bible publishers starting dropping the appendix altogether, and the modern translations used by most evangelicals today don’t even reference the Apocrypha at all. Thus, the myth is perpetuated that nefarious popes and bishops have gotten away with brazenly foisting a bunch of bogus scripture on the ignorant Catholic masses.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, it was Luther and Calvin and the other reformers who did all the foisting. The Old Testament that Christians had been using for 1,500 years had always included the so-called Apocrypha, and there was never a question as to its canonicity. Thus, by selectively editing and streamlining their own versions of the Bible according to their sectarian biases (including, in Luther’s case, both Testaments, Old and New), the reformers engaged in a theological con game. To make matters worse, they covered their tracks by pointing fingers at the Catholic Church for “adding” phony texts to the closed canon of Hebrew Sacred Writ.

In this sense, the reformers were anticipating what I call the Twain-Jefferson approach to canonical revisionism. It involves two simple steps.

Step one: Identify the parts of Scripture that you find especially onerous or troublesome. Generally, these will be straightforward biblical references that don’t quite square with the doctrine one is championing or the practices one has already embraced. Mark Twain is the modern herald of this half of creative textual reconstruction: “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me,” Twain wrote, “it is the parts that I do understand.”

Step two: Yank the vexing parts out. It’s what Thomas Jefferson literally did when he took his own Bible and cut out the passages he found offensive—a kind of “scripture by subtraction” in the words of religion professor Stephen Prothero.

The reformers justified their Twain-Jefferson humbug by pointing to the canon of scriptures in use by European Jews during that time, and it did not include those extra Catholic books—case closed! Still unconvinced? Today’s defenders of the reformers’ biblical reshaping will then proceed to throw around historical precedent and references to the first-century Council of Jamnia, but it’s all really smoke and mirrors.

The fact is that the first-century Jewish canon was pretty mutable and there was no universal definitive list of sacred texts. On the other hand, it is indisputable that the version being used by Jesus and the Apostles during that time was the Septuagint—the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures that included Luther’s rejected apocryphal books. SCORE: Deuterocanon – 1; Twain-Jefferson Revisionism – 0.

But this is all beside the point. It’s like an argument about creationism vs. evolution that gets funneled in the direction of whether dinosaurs could’ve been on board Noah’s Ark. Once you’re arguing about that, you’re no longer arguing about the bigger issue of the historicity of those early chapters in Genesis. The parallel red herring here is arguing over the content of the Christian Old Testament canon instead of considering the nature of authority itself and how it’s supposed to work in the Church, especially with regards to the Bible.

I mean, even if we can settle what the canon should include, we don’t have the autographs (original documents) from any biblical books anyway. While we affirm the Church’s teaching that all Scripture is inspired and teaches “solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings” (DV 11), there are no absolutes when it comes to the precise content of the Bible.

Can there be any doubt that this is by God’s design? Without the autographs, we are much less tempted to worship a static book instead of the One it reveals to us. Even so, it’s true that we are still encouraged to venerate the Scriptures, but we worship the incarnate Word—and we ought not confuse the two. John the Baptist said as much when he painstakingly distinguished between himself, the announcer, and the actual Christ he was announcing. The Catechism, quoting St. Bernard, offers a further helpful distinction:

The Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.”

Anyway, with regards to authority and the canon of Scripture, Mark Shea couldn’t have put it more succinctly than his recent response to a request for a summary of why the deuterocanon should be included in the Bible:

Because the Church in union with Peter, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) granted authority by Christ to loose and bind (Matthew 16:19), says they should be.

Right. The Church says so, and that’s good enough.

For it’s the Church who gives us the Scriptures. It’s the Church who preserves the Scriptures and tells us to turn to them. It’s the Church who bathes us in the Scriptures with the liturgy, day in and day out, constantly watering our souls with God’s Word. Isn’t it a bit bizarre to be challenging the Church with regards to which Scriptures she’s feeding us with? “No, mother,” the infant cries, “not breast milk! I want Ovaltine! Better yet, how about some Sprite!”

Think of it this way. My daughter Margaret and I share an intense devotion to Betty Smith’s remarkable novel, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. It’s a bittersweet family tale of impoverishment, tragedy, and perseverance, and we often remark how curious it is that Smith’s epic story receives so little attention.

I was rooting around the sale shelf at the public library one day, and I happened upon a paperback with the name “Betty Smith” on the spine. I took a closer look: Joy in the Morning, a 1963 novel of romance and the struggles of newlyweds, and it was indeed by the same Smith of Tree fame. I snatched it up for Meg.

The other day, Meg thanked me for the book, and asked me to be on the lookout for others by Smith. “It wasn’t nearly as good as Tree,” she said, “and I don’t expect any of her others to be as good. But I want to read everything she wrote because Tree was so wonderful.”

See, she wants to get to know Betty Smith because of what she encountered in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. And all we have are her books and other writings; Betty Smith herself is gone.

But Jesus isn’t like that. We have the book, yes, but we have more. We still have the Word himself.

One source you seem to be relying upon "scripture-catholic" is one of the worst around. They don't seem to have read (and understood!) some of that which they include.

Look at how it is a grab-bag of info which relies upon innuendo to make the case. Besides, most any quote they allege is found in deuteroncanon can be found elsewhere in the OT, and if not close enough word-for-word, than widely enough found as to fundamental precept otherwise in the OT.

All that info --- and it still didn't establish your contention

Books of the OT, thrown out by the Jews in 90A.D.

I gave a rough outline of explanation of what occurred. There was no "throwing books out of the OT" done by Jewish religious 'authorities' after the Temple was overthrown.

That's just a myth convenient to some...like the folks at 'scripture-catholic'. (titling themselves as they do, they manage to tar two good names/concepts all at the same time...)

When Jesus was reading from scrolls in the Temple --- do you imagine those scrolls were written in Greek?

Think about it. Then go and try and prove that Greek was the predominant language -- so much so that it would be spoken in the Temple. It's more likely that Hebrew was the official language of the religion -- somewhat as Latin was long the only official language amid Roman Catholicism, particularly when it comes to Scripture itself.

On that last score -- can you show me a single language translation or version other than in Latin which has DIRECT and EXPLICIT approval by the Vatican? I'll answer that for you. The answer is "no".

The original Greek translation of what came to be called Septuagint was only of the books of Moses, otherwise known as the Pentateuch.

The rest was added later - by who knows who. Later additions do not equal them being considered 'canonical' among the Hebrews which Christ showed Himself to, in the flesh.

The oldest extant copies of 'Septuagint' do not agree with one another as to contents (books). Chew on that for a while...

Which one of the oldest extant versions is the right one? Oh -- and neither of them (in their contents) agree with what Council of Trent later deemed OT canonical when they there applied the term deuterocanon (second canon).

That term deuterocanon allowed those who voted against those works being recognized as "fully" canonical to retain their own attitudes towards them, even as those books had long been accessed for verses or passages here and there which could be kosher enough as towards the grander underlying and unifying themes -- culminating in Christ's own bodily sacrifice --- without opening the door wide open to such things as burning the heart of a particular fish to ward off 'evil spirits', etc...

Do I need to provide link to (what can be know of) Josephus for you? How about educated commentary concerning it;

From http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.iii.iii.html

The important passage to which we refer is in his first book against Apion. “We have,” says he, “only two-and-twenty books, which are justly believed to be of divine authority—of which five are the books of Moses. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, king of Persia, the Prophets, who were the successors of Moses, have written in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of human life.” Now, the five books of Moses are universally agreed to be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The thirteen books written by the prophets will include Joshua, Judges, with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, Job, Ezra, Esther, and Chronicles. The four remaining books will be, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, which make the whole number twenty-two. The Canon then existing is proved to be the same as that which we now possess. It would appear, indeed, that these books might more conveniently be reckoned twenty-four; and this is the present method of numbering them by the modern Jews; but formerly the number was regulated by that of the Hebrew alphabet, which consists of twenty-two letters: therefore they annexed the small book of Ruth to Judges; and probably it is a continuation of this book by the same author. They added, also, the Lamentations of Jeremiah to his prophecy, and this was natural enough. As to the minor prophets, which form twelve separate books in our Bibles, they were, anciently, always reckoned one book, so they are considered in every ancient catalogue, and in all quotations from them. Josephus adds, to what is cited above, the following: “But as to the books which have been written since the time of Artaxerxes until our times, they are not considered worthy of the same credit as the former, because they do not contain accurate doctrine sanctioned by the prophets.” [bolding and underlining added]

Continuing on from that same link, now some discussion of Melito whom I mentioned (and whom 'scripture-catholic' includes citation for but seem to not understand in the least.)

It will not be supposed that any change could have occurred in the Canon from the time of our Saviour and his apostles, to that in which Josephus wrote. Indeed, he may be considered the contemporary of the apostles, as he was born about the time of Paul’s conversion to Christianity, and was therefore grown up to man’s age long before the death of this apostle; and the apostle John probably survived him. And it must be remembered that Josephus is here giving his testimony to a public fact: he is declaring what books were received as divine by his nation; and he does it without hesitation or inconsistency. “We have,” says he, “only twenty-two books which are justly believed to be of divine authority.”
We are able also to adduce other testimony to prove the same thing. Some of the early Christian Fathers, who had been brought up in Paganism, when they embraced Christianity, were curious in their inquiries into the Canon of the Old Testament; and the result of the researches of some of them still remains. Melito, bishop of Sardis, travelled into Judea, for the very purpose of satisfying himself, on this point. And although his own writings are lost, Eusebius has preserved his catalogue of the books of the Old Testament; from which it appears, that the very same books were, in his day, received into the Canon, as are now found in our Hebrew Bibles. In the catalogue of Melito, presented by Eusebius, after Proverbs, the word Wisdom occurs, which nearly all commentators have been of opinion is only another name for the same book, and not the name of the book now called “The Wisdom of Solomon.” There is, however, an omission of Esther and Nehemiah. As to the latter, it creates no difficulty, for Ezra and Nehemiah are commonly counted as one book; and some learned men are of opinion that Ezra being the author of Esther, this book also is included under the name Esdras. The interval between Melito and Josephus is not a hundred years, so that no alteration in the Canon can be reasonably supposed to have taken place in this period.
Very soon after Melito, Origen furnishes us with a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which perfectly accords with our Canon, except that he omits the Minor Prophets; which omission must have been a mere slip of the pen, in him or his copyist, as it is certain that he received this as a book of Holy Scripture: and the number of the books of the Old Testament, given by him in this very place, cannot be completed without reckoning the twelve Minor Prophets as one.

The writer of the above, when he says "perfectly accords with our Canon" is speaking or OT canon minus the so-called deuterocanonicals. During Melito's time there was already some controversy among Christians as to what the Hebrew canon precisely consisted, which is why he traveled to seek out the answer.

Even if he (Schaff, I think it is) is wrong about the book called "Wisdom" in the above --- where are all the rest? Where are all the rest in Tertullian's list?

These issues (of OT canon) were argued over the course of many centuries, with there being many Councils in the East which took up the issue, some of which the Church of Rome was not partaker of-- and in one instance (if memory serves) though there be a couple of representatives from Rome present, since they were so outnumbered by all the others, then later Rome whined 'no fair' since they didn't entirely agree with the results.

What matters here is just what the Son of God Himself would have recognized as what He came to fulfill -- or else that fulfillment becomes either adulterated or incrementally fades into meaningless...

Not aiming this personally towards yourself, like in accusation that you are one of the murderers Christ spoke of, but in Matthew 23:29- there is;

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents,
brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I
send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and
some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,
35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

with the portion I have bolded indicating the order the order of the scrolls as where used by the Hebrews of that day. Notice too the context -- Him speaking to the scribes and the Pharisees whom knew what was written upon the scrolls arguably better than anyone, all THAT blood-guilt coming down upon them --- even if the spirit of the Law and the underlying thrust of the messages given unto them by prophets down through the centuries (thus the heart of the Father shown, albeit somewhat veiled) very much escaped them, and would continue to be beyond them when they would in the near future --scourge, persecute, kill & crucify "prophets, wise men, and scribes".

That would be Christians (of course?), and those of their own number who would attempt to caution the murderers from their continued lawlessness even if they didn't necessarily openly profess the name of Jesus Christ Himself, perhaps...

But between Adam and Zechariah there is no room for Maccabees, and the like, or what someone may attempt to 'teach' or propound from there ---which is the point. Besides -- the Maccabees tried to take it into their own hands to 'do God's will' for Israel, there showing themselves the sort of prophets who run before receiving the entire message -- who run without having been appointed & sent BY THE KING. The punishment for that --according to OT texts -- is death.

Josephus -- A.D. 70 witness against the deterocanonicals having been ever accepted by the Jews as Holy Writ.

Melito -- soon on his heels, saying much the same with one possible difference (which may be no real difference at all.)

Origen -- more or less an echo of Melito, and Origen in spite of his eccentricities was a prodigious analyst and compiler of that which had come before him. His geographic location at the time was prime. Eusebius bears witness of these two.

Tertullian -- bore witness of canon which does not agree with later acceptance of what Jerome termed Apocrypha other than one book which Jerome himself wrote was not of equal consideration of the rest of the Hebrew 'canon' as it were...

As for Qumran texts -- there were writings among those found which evidently were in no sense considered holy writ by anyone -- then or now.

Presence of a few of the Apocrypha means little to nothing -- unless one wishes to add yet more apocryphal written works found there ALSO. I mean...why pick and choose? How can one do THAT merely for some of those being present there, if other works besides the so-called deuteroncanonicals are found there also? If there is to be some standard of judgement applied -- then apply it across the board. Or else it is illogical.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.