It wasn't unprecedented at all. Jerome among others "declared" them uninspired. Luther included them in his version in a separate section and said in the preface:
"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."
That is kinder than I would have been. :) BD has posted several articles on this thread exposing the weaknesses of these books, including the issue with the Jewish canon, provable historical inaccuracies, and contradictions with established scripture.
But as I posted to Joe recently, I find it absolutely amazing that in the 10,000 posts here and the 12,000 on the L&E thread that I have seen Apostolics quote from the Dueterocanonicals MAYBE 3 times altogether. And you guys aren't shy about quoting, which is as it should be. I have seen the evidence myself as to how important and authoritative YOU all think the Dueterocanonicals are.
Some saints declared 2 Peter and Revelation as uninspired. Yet, there they are in your Protestant bible... Seems to me you are trying to cite saints ONLY when it suits your purposes. We should look at the entire picture, not to the fact that ONE saint didn't like the Greek Septuagint.
BD has posted several articles on this thread exposing the weaknesses of these books, including the issue with the Jewish canon, provable historical inaccuracies, and contradictions with established scripture.
Maybe you didn't see that I responded to these? There is no "contradictions", just like there is no contradictions in other Scriptures. And what Jewish canon are you speaking of? The Greek Septuagint WAS a Jewish canon!
But as I posted to Joe recently, I find it absolutely amazing that in the 10,000 posts here and the 12,000 on the L&E thread that I have seen Apostolics quote from the Dueterocanonicals MAYBE 3 times altogether.
When two people discuss issues, they must meet on a point of common agreement. What good would it do to my point of view to quote a book that YOU do not accept as Scriptures? You would promptly deny that it had any force of argument. Thus, we Catholics and Orthodox condescend to your level of what is Scriptures so as to prove a theological point. This does not mean we accept your canon. We certainly can quote the Deuts. But honestly, what would it do to convince you of our point of view?
Regards
But unlike Luther's his opinion -- not a declaration -- had no consequence, as the Bible in use has alwys been the complete set, except in Protestant circles.
BD has posted several articles on this thread exposing the weaknesses of these books
Nonsense all, a result of deliberate misreading, and refuted on the thread.
I find it absolutely amazing that in the 10,000 posts here and the 12,000 on the L&E thread that I have seen Apostolics quote from the Dueterocanonicals MAYBE 3 times altogether
I would not quote from the Deuterocanonical in argument with a Protestant for the same reason I would not quote from the Vatican documents, -- because it is not an authority you recognize. This leaves quotes done for illustration of a Catohlic teaching, and that is unusual because we tend to have good apologetical writings for that reason. However, of greater importance is what the Apostles quoted, and for that see 7207, 7405, 7414, 8277 on this thread.