Posted on 07/11/2010 11:07:54 AM PDT by Gamecock
Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1 However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon, or standard writings of Scripture.
1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.
2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”
Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zecharias was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zacharias, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2
4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.
5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4
7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)
10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).
Sources
That is incorrect, there was a canon at the time of Nehemiah
Jesus spoke of the the 3-part division of Hebrew scripture in Luke 24:44, referring to the, “Law of Moses.. the prophets …the Psalms”. This is the current division of the Protestant bible and confirms the Apocrypha was not a part of the Jewish canon
The hebrew canon is in the Babylonian Talmud, the books in the Hebrew “Canon” are the identical 39 books in the Protestant bible.
Are you suggesting that the Septuagint was faulty and incomplete scripture?
Could you point me in the direction of the place in scripture where God took the authority on the canon of the books written for and by the jews?
You make it seem like there was great affinity between Rufinus and Jerome. Jerome, although saying Rufinus had been his friend, writes that he is attacked as by an enemy, as they exchange mutual accusations of heresy. Rufinus, indeed, is recognized as a heretic, of the universalist persuasion. Your source also asserts (falsely) that Rufinus “follows” Jerome and the Greek Fathers as rejecting the Apocrypha, although it’s quite clear from your own quote that what was regarded as apocryhpa was not the deuterocanonicals, but rather altogether separate books.
What, then, to make of Rufinus’ assertions? Well, first, we know that Jerome calls him a fool and a slanderer. We know he is a heretic. And we know that he was formerly a friend of Jerome who hypocritically moved to have Jerome declared a heretic. Yet all this ad-hominem doesn’t resolve the nature of his assertions, all we do know is that the gift of the Holy Spirit was not with him, separated as he was from the True Church.
Thus, his ambiguities are vexing. Many Church Fathers equate the canon with the list of books fit to be read at church. What, then, shall we make of Rufinus’ separation of books into canonical and ecclesiastical? Here, he refers to the usage by the ancients. What ancients? The Greeks were not, to him, ancient. Does he, then, mean the Israelites? Surely, then, he could not include the New Testament books, as he seems to. Or is he asserting that the ancients read the “Shepherd of Hermes” in their liturgies? There are other sources that suggest that some 2nd-century Christians did.
So we must know, when he writes, “They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine.” Confirmation of doctrine towards whom? Jerome, himself, defends his writings on the grounds that his exclusion of the Deuterocanonicals didn’t mean that they weren’t inspired, but that they were not useful for the conversion of the Jews, since the Jews didn’t regard them as inspired. And who is “they?”
Rubbish. Canon is listed as such, then another list is given that carries the instruction that the books in that list are NOT TO BE USED FOR DOCTRINE.
"The original criteria for what was considered canonical was whether a book was read publicly in worship "
Rubbish, the contents of the list, which is given seperate from Canon carries the label - "NOT TO BE USED FOR DOCTRINE." That means that it's not Scripture.
>> Jesus spoke of the the 3-part division of Hebrew scripture in Luke 24:44, referring to the, “Law of Moses.. the prophets …the Psalms”. <<
No, that’s not the tripartate division. If that were the canon, he would have been leaving out Job, Chronicles, Proverbs, Esther, Song of Solomon, etc. The Saduccees’ canon was just the Law of Moses. The Pharisees’ included the prophets, but excluded the Khetuvim, which included the Deuterocanonicals, but also Job, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, Song of Solomon, etc.
>> The hebrew canon is in the Babylonian Talmud, the books in the Hebrew “Canon” are the identical 39 books in the Protestant bible <<
That was Luther’s excuse for leaving seven books out... that the Jews did not include them. But the Jews removed them AFTER Christ, specifically because they believed that such “Hellenistic” contamination brought about the zealotry for the Messiah, which they blamed on the fall of Jerusalem. So Luther was essentially arguing, “Let’s favor the Jews who rejected Christ over the Jews who spread the gospel.”
>> Are you suggesting that the Septuagint was faulty and incomplete scripture? <<
Uh, no. The Septuagint was complete, and included the deuterocanonicals. Jerome caught flak for preferring the Hebrew translations over the Septuagint precisely because his enemies twisted this into the lie that he favored the Hebrew canon over the Septuagint’s.
>> Could you point me in the direction of the place in scripture where God took the authority on the canon of the books written for and by the jews? <<
When he split the alter of sacrifice in two, tore the temple curtain and shook the Earth? Otherwise, you’d have to exclude the New Testament.
Hence the ambiguity - they are to be used, but not used as foundation for doctrinal positions. Again, a compromise position - as usual for the Articles.
Rubbish, the contents of the list, which is given seperate from Canon carries the label - "NOT TO BE USED FOR DOCTRINE." That means that it's not Scripture.
Yet it was read as Scripture publicly in service, in the same contexts as reading from the protocanonical books.
For almost the entire months of October and November the Reading 1 is taken from the deuterocanonicals, whereas in September all the Reading 1 material comes from the Minor Prophets and all the December Reading 1 material comes from Isaiah.
Again, the original criterion for whether a book was canonical or not was whether it was publicly read at service.
The public reading of the deuterocanon underlines the ambiguity.
Now back to the point at and, ST. Jerome is accurate, if you understand the context. He did question them while he was working on his translation and studying under Jewish scholars who were pushing the “Hebrew only books”, or what we now know is, Books that were only in Hebrew that they [Jewish Scholars] at that time were aware of as the findings at Qumran show that the Jewish-Essenes group did in fact have Hebrew translations of most of the Deuterocanonicals.
Jerome questioned whether the Deuterocanonicals should be included. On that point we can say “Yes”. What he did not do given the Councils that occurred after the Synod in Rome in 382, which drew up the list of canonical books in Rome and that list was the 46 OT canon, including the 7 Deueterocanoncals [even the OP by Gamecock in footnote 4 admits as much], i.e the Councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397, was challenge the authority of the Catholic Church once those Councils had all been accepted by Rome, which was the case during the time of Pope Innocent I whose letter to the Bishops in Gaul circa 405 AD corresponds to the time of St. Jerome’s letter that you cited.
Thus, given the entire context of that period in the History of the Catholic Church, it is true that 1) Jerome at 1 point questioned whether the Deuterocanoncals were “Canon” and 2) Given the Decrees of by 405, 3 Different Synods/Councils, and Pope Innocent I’s confirming said Councils, Jerome in humility submitted to the authority of the Church and accepted the 7 Deuterocanonicals as “Canon” which leads to the fuller context of his letter to Rufinus, who at one time was a close friend and ally of St. Jerome but several Letters between the 2 men dated circa 395 to 402 clearly illustrate a breach between the 2 men.
The fact that Jerome defended his "submission" does not, in any way, indicate his acceptance of the so-called Apocrypha in any way.
To my knowledge he never defended the full canonicity of the Apocrypha.
The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous "Prologus Galeatus", or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine . An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition , is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen , Athanasius , and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church ", to borrow Jerome's phrase.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA - JEROME AND THE APOCRYPHA
You make it sound as if Jerome ever bought the canonicity of the apocrypha. He never did.
All inspired scripture is written by prophets, the books that are written in greek do not have prophetic authorship and are not prophetic or Christocentric .Finally the same books of the Law and the Prophets of the Hebrew Canon are also found in the Septuagint. If the greek apocrypha was accepted by Christ or the Jews it would have been included in the Septuagint . We see that Jesus spoke clearly that the canon was closed in the eyes of God Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51, and Luke 24:44,
Incorrect. The Jews living in Judaea who did not read Greek did not accept them.
So God would send His word to the Jewish nation in a manner that they could not read?
The majority of the Jews in the world at the time used the Septuagint as their standard translation. The reason why the New Testament was written entirely in Greek (when almost all the authors were fluent in Aramaic and even Hebrew) was because the most of the world's Jews used Greek as their daily language.
Scripture indicates that the scriptures used by Jesus in the temple were indeed in Hebrew and not the Septuagint that seems to deny the common usage of the greek in temple functions. The canon was closed at the time of jesus ...we know this because the purpose of the OT was to point to Christ.. and here are His words on the topic
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
So jesus indicates that the scriptures were complete and closed when He preached from them
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
If the book of Esther or the Song of Songs can be described as Christocentric, then any deuterocanonical work can easily be described likewise
Indeed Ester is Christocentric as it reflects the redemption of Christ for His people even if He is unseen , Esther reflects the coming Messish as she was willing to lose everything, even her life to save Her people
Song of songs is not an erotic letter it reflects Christs tenderness for His church . The church is the bride of Christ.. and this is a deep expression of Christs love for her
OLD REGGIE:
And the quote you cite is entirely consistent with what I posted, and in fact, confirms an earlier post of mine where I cited that in the Early Church, there were 2 Main Points of Canonicity 1) Whether it was appropriate to be read in the Church’s Liturgy and 2) Whether the Book helped illuminate Doctrine.
And as my post noted, St. Jerome in humility accepted the Authority of the Church with respect to the 7 Deuterocanonicals, and while he personally may have held the view that they were not of equal authority as the Protocanonical [which was clearly the minority view of both the Western and Eastern Fathers as only a hanful held that position], he does acknowledge that they were read in the Public Liturgy of the Church, again 1 of the principles of defining Canon, and while he did believe that they did not help with defining doctrine, the other main principle of canonocity, in no time did St. Jerome break communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church and thus he accepted the Church’s decision with respect to the 7 Deuterocanonicals books.
And of course, while Jerome was a great biblical scholar, he was not a theologian and indeed there were some doctrines confirmed and illuminated in the Deuterocanonicals. For example, the doctrine of Original Sin was being more clearly defined in Jerome’s time, primarily by St. Augustine [360 to 430 AD] who died 10 years after Jerome and corresponded with Jerome throughout his life. It is in the book of Wisdom where we see the first and only place in the OT where Satan is mentioned as being the cause of Adam and Eve’s Fall (cf. Wisdom 2:24). The Book of Wisdom also has many Christological implications such as Christ as the “Suffering Servant” (c.f. Wisdom 2: 12-20 which prefigures Mt 27: 37-43) so on Jerome’s view that the Deuterocanonicals while read in the Church’s Liturgy, but not helping define Doctrine, he was in fact incorrect as the majority of Christendom, both Latin and Greek accepted the Deuterocanonicals as OT canon as evidenced by the fact that “BOTH” the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Canon contains the Deuterocanonicals, although the Orthodox OT canon contains 3 books not in the Catholic OT canon [3 and 4 Macabees and 3 Esdras following St. Jerome or 1 Esdras following Protestant terminology].
No, it was ..."read for example of life and instruction of manners" It was not read as Scripture.
My final word on the subject:
Romans 3:
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2* Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
The "Old Testament" is a Jewish book and it's content is entrusted only to the Jews.
ALL scripture is written by Prophets ...and as I recall Jesus had no use for the Pharisees and rebuked them .
The canonical scriptures were sealed by Christ Himself when He declared that He had fulfilled them . He upheld the content and order of the Hebrew scriptures ...Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51, and Luke 24:44 We need also to be mindful that the Torah, the first five books of Moses, second the Nevi'im or Prophets, and third the Ketuvim or Writings were confirmed on the road to emmaus. Christ opened the scriptures to them about Himself, from one end of the Bible to the other. From the beginning at Moses; next to the prophets; and then on to the last division that began with Psalms;
That was Luther’s excuse for leaving seven books out... that the Jews did not include them. But the Jews removed them AFTER Christ, specifically because they believed that such “Hellenistic” contamination brought about the zealotry for the Messiah, which they blamed on the fall of Jerusalem. So Luther was essentially arguing, “Let’s favor the Jews who rejected Christ over the Jews who spread the gospel.”
Luther did not need "an excuse" to omit the texts that were never canon until Trent..The OT was given to the Jews, written by Jewish prophets to reveal the Messiah and they are placed in the care of the Jews, God has never removed the care of the OT from the Jews.. The NT church has no authority to add or subtract from the jewish cannon
. The Septuagint was complete, and included the deuterocanonicals. Jerome caught flak for preferring the Hebrew translations over the Septuagint precisely because his enemies twisted this into the lie that he favored the Hebrew canon over the Septuagint’s.
Actually it contained many books that even Trent did not believe were canonical so that is a weak argument for the inclusion of some of them and omission of others
Jerome believed that the present canon , the one used by the Jews were inspired, the others were "sacred writings" suitable for meditation..Just keep in mind the Rc had no closed canon until trent and the content of various versions varied from area to area based on local councils.. Trent closed the canon because of Luther and His decision not to include the apocrypha in the bible ..this posed some doctrinal problems for the RC
When he split the alter of sacrifice in two, tore the temple curtain and shook the Earth? Otherwise, you’d have to exclude the New Testament.
There was no church when the curtain was rent.. ... The correct answer to my question is NEVER..the OT remains the covenant that God made WITH THEM ..It was written by Jewish prophets , for Jews . From Paul (AFTER THERE WAS A CHURCH)
Romans 3 1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Now as to the curtain being ripped in the temple.. That was the curtain that separated men from the Holy of Holies.. The High Priest met God there.. NOW we no longer need a priest as an intermediary as we have direct access to the throne of God through Christ.. THAT is why there is no priesthood in the NT church , it was a type of Christ , fulfilled at that cross.. God later destroyed the entire Jewish priesthood..as there is no more sacrifice for sins..
My point was that (1) Rufinus’ take on the ancients’ position on the Deuterocanonicals is ambiguous, (2) Jerome and Rufinus certainly didn’t agree so your appeal to Rufinus is mysterious, and (3) Rufinus is a poor witness.
>> He upheld the content and order of the Hebrew scriptures ...Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51, and Luke 24:44 <<
Nothing in those passages enumerates the content of the scriptures, such as whether Job or Maccabees is scriptural.
>> Luther did not need “an excuse” to omit the texts that were never canon until Trent.. <<
I already dealt with the absurdity of the claim that Trent added books.
>> Actually it contained many books that even Trent did not believe were canonical so that is a weak argument for the inclusion of some of them and omission of others <<
No it didn’t. The sole discrepancy between the Septuagint and the Council of Trent is that some early versions of the Septuagint had a condensation of the two Books of Esdras (”Nehemiah” and “Ezra”) into a single book. The Council of Trent, finding no unique doctrine in that condensation did not find that it must be defended as doctrinal in addition to Nehemiah and Ezra. Some ignorant Protestants see a “Letter of Jeremiah” listed in the Septuagint and fail to recognize that this had been included in Baruch, or believe that III Maccabees was part of the Septuagint, because the King James included it.
OLD REGGIE:
Well, I don’t know what that means in the context of what Christians decided to be their Canon and again, the notion of Judaism being “monolithic” is historically inaccurate. The 5 major sects of Judaism did not agree on the Jewish Scriptures as 1) Sadduccees only accepted the first 5 books, 2) Pharisees accepted a longer list similar to Judaism today and what PRotestants accept, 3) Hellenistic-Diaspora Jews accepted the LXX (Septuigiant) which contained the Deuterocanonicals.
The version of the OT that the Apostles Used was the LXX as the majority of the OT quotes found in the NT come from the LXX source.
In closing you are free to believe in the CHurch of Mirror or the Church of Reggie or the Church of St. Convenience, which and reject the continuity of Christian Tradition. IN this manner, those who elevate their personal opinion to the level of Dogma are no different in some respects than the marxist-secular relativist who engage in “historicism” which means they think that the culture of the now is the guide for truth and thus history is something that binds us to those “unenlightened” ideas of the past.
G.K. Chesterton said it best when he said in effect the Catholic Tradition pays head to our Ancestors for Tradition is the Democracy of the Dead and refuses to ruled by the arrogant oligarchy who happen to be alive.
Thus you can choose to reject the Catholic OT canon, but it was in place by the end of the 4th century and it also was the Church that decided on the 27 book NT canon for as Eusebious reports in his History of the Church in the early 4th century (circa 320-325 AD), the NT itself and what it was universally recognized to consist of was still in debate as Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John were still contested.
So everyone you and Protestants quote from the NT, you are relying on the authority of the Catholic Church whether you admit it or not or you fall into this crazy theological theory called the Biblical canon is a “fallible list of infallible books”???? Give me a break that is bogus for if the Church in the 4th century was fallible in its determination, then why do you take the 27 book NT as canon and how do you know that the Catholic Church and Pope Damasus, St. Augustine, the Council of Hippo, Carthage, Pope Innocent I, etc were wrong in deciding the canon.
So whether you, and other Protestants here admit it, your 27 book NT relies on the consensus of the 4th century Catholic Church regardless if that “Pains you all” to admit it.
I did not say they added anything, I said they CLOSED the canon . Their was no official canon in the RC, Local councils, without church wide authority declared canon for their districts.. but there was no OFFICIAL RC Canon until Trent..and that for obvious reasons..
There was no agreement by the "church Fathers" on the definition of the word Canon or what books should be included in it..
No it didn’t. The sole discrepancy between the Septuagint and the Council of Trent is that some early versions of the Septuagint had a condensation of the two Books of Esdras (”Nehemiah” and “Ezra”) into a single book.
There are three major codices of the Septuagint, the Codex Alexandrinus (A), the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (S). Each codex has a different set of books, and in some cases (marked by the appropriate letters), the version of the book varies between the codices. In addition, there are variants of Bel and the Dragon, Daniel, and Susanna, based on a translation by Theodotion (Th).
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua B Joshua A Judges B Judges A Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles....... 1 Esdras.... 2 Esdras..... Esther Judith..... Tobit BA.... Tobit S.... 1 Macabees.... 2 Macabees..... 3 Macabees.... 4 Macabees..... Psalms Odes..... Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Job Wisdom.... Sirach..... Psalms of Solomon..... Hosea Micah Amos Joel Jonah Obadiah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Isaiah Jeremiah Baruch.... Epistle of Jeremiah..... Lamentations Ezekiel Bel and the Dragon..... Bel and the Dragon Th..... Daniel Daniel Th.... Susanna.... Susanna Th.....,
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/index.htm
spunkets:
Incorrect, reading in the Liturgy was the Higest Prayer of the Church and as the old Latin saying goes, “Lex Orandi Lex Credendi” which despite my Latin spelling is translated to mean “the Law of Prayer dictates the Law of Creed” and vice versa.
1) Reading of the Sacred Scriptures in Church was 1 of the 2 key points of canonicity and despite St. Jerome’s views, the 7 Deuterocanonicals where used in shaping Doctrine and defending the orthodox Tradition from heretics as starting with the Didache in the late 1st century and St. Clement of Rome, the 4th Bishop of Rome and moving thru the 2nd-3rd century writers, St. Irenaues, St. Polycarp, ST. Justin Martyr St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage all cited from the Deuterocanonicals in the Doctrinal disputes between the orthodox Catholics and the various Gnostic and other heretical sects.
You are proving my point. Can you imagine Pope Benedict writing a commentary on Jesus of Nazareth that he knew was contrary to established church teaching on the subject? Of course not. In the same way Gregory the Great would have never purposefully expressed a view that he knew was contrary to that which had been authoritatively established by the Church, i.e. contradict already well established Church teaching on what constituted the Canon.
...what St. Jerome in the Vulgate referred to as 3 and 4 Esdras and those books were never part of the OT canon in the Latin-Western Catholic Church as evidenced by the OT canon lists of Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397 AD and Carthage again in 419 AD.
Not so. Notwithstanding the confusing terms, what Hippo and Carthage declared canonical (1 Esdras) Trent declared uncanonical because Hippo and Carhage were referring to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. It is the Septuigant 1 Esdras that became 3 Esdras in the Vulgate. The bottom line is that the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras was different from the one decreed by Trent because the North African Church followed the Septuagint.
Cordially,
The label became a nomenclature
Diamond:
No I think you are missing the point. Pope Gregory viewed 1 Macabees in light of being useful for reading in the Public Liturgy and for edification, which was basically what St. Athanasius said and was a view of “a very small minority of the CHurch Fathers”. That was his personal view, but Pope Gregory never as Pope called a Council to question the canonical List of the 4th century. So, it was his view as a personal theologian about a question of “canon”, which is a far cry from writing something contrary to Dogma or Doctrine relating to Christological issues.
I think the reason this is being focused on by Protestants because you all adhere to “Sola-Scriptura”. The issue of the Canon is still, in some instances a potentially open question. For example, what would happen if the Pope and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs get together at a Council to re-establish Full Communion. What would the OT Canon be?, would it be the Western-Latin Church OT canon or the longer Eastern Orthodox OT canon. And lets say us Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are “nice” and let you Protestants come to the party and have input into the question, do you really think the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, which comprise some 70% of Christendom, would go with the Protestant Canon.
Here is Canon 24 from the Council of Carthage in 419: Notice that the primarily consideration was “what was to be read in the CHurch”
Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
The New Testament.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.
So I think there were some books combined, ie. Baruch and Lamentations were sometimes grouped with Jeremiah, which gets you to 46 Books but cleary 1 Esdras [3rd Esdras in Vulgate terminology] was not in that canon as there are only 2 books of Ezra, which correspond to Ezra and Nehemiah. So I count only 44 Books, but remember as I noted if you include Baruch and Lamentations with Jeremiah, as sometimes done The Council of Carthage in 419, at least as I read it, gets you to 46 Books. The Council of Carthage’s Canon List is the same one as the 419 List, which only lists 44 books by name.
However, as I noted earlier, in the Greek and Latin Versions of the Scriptures in the 4th Century, Baruch and Lamentations were included with Jeremiah and thus what you count, i.e. 44 Books is actually the 46 Books in the Catholic OT Canon today.
The Canon list at Hippo in 393 is the same as above and ST. Augustine’s Letter “Christian Instruction” written circa 397 to 400 AD] documents a 44 Book OT canon, which corresponds to the same 44 Books listed above. Again, in those 4th century manuscripts, Baruch and Lamentations were viewed to be written with Jeremiah and considered 1 Book.
So again, I don’t see where 3 Esdras, using Jerome’s Vulgate terminology ever was in the Western Canon Lists. As I noted in several other threads, it is in the Eastern Orthodox OT Canon since it was in the LXX version and in many cases, the Greek Church viewed the LXX version itself as Divinely inspired.
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.