Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defending the Deuterocanonicals
CIN ^ | James Akin

Posted on 08/19/2002 5:30:51 PM PDT by JMJ333

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church -- the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life -- the Septuagint.

The Apostles & the Deuteros

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands -- especially without warning them against them.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find -- anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi -- is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament -- in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . [B]ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).

One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection. "The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29).

This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals. The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

The Fathers Speak

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

The Reformation Attack on the Bible

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books -- Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation -- and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

Rewriting Church History

In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church "added" these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent!

Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.

It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures-testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.

He wrote, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled -- the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.

Other writers Protestants cite as objecting to the deuterocanonicals, such as Athanasius and Origen, also accepted some or all of them as canonical. For example, Athanasius, accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39), and Origen accepted all of the deuterocanonicals, he simply recommended not using them in disputations with Jews.

However, despite the misgivings and hesitancies of a few individual writers such as Jerome, the Church remained firm in its historic affirmation of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture handed down from the apostles. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks that in spite of Jerome's doubt, "For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405" (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

It is thus a complete myth that, as Protestants often charge, the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonicals to the Bible at the Council of Trent. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm, in the face of the new Protestant attack on Scripture, what had been the historic Bible of the Church -- the standard edition of which was Jerome's own Vulgate, including the seven deuterocanonicals!

The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-135 next last
To: JMJ333; drstevej
Well doc, that is a bit of an attempt to throw me off topic because I have already said that there is too much to cover.

JM I grew up with those books..they are beautiful and insiteful..but are they inspired liturature? I do not believe so . Jesus never quoted them in His teachings..there is no NT teaching on this OT practice.

Steve is correct that the real problem is the book of Machabees is the only place where there can be found any reference to praying for the dead..and purgatory

That is why the church NEEDS those books to support doctrine not found any other place

I have Bibles with the books in my home, but I do not consider them to be the innerrent word of God. I can read and enjoy them the same way I can enjoy books by Yancy or Max Luccadio, or the writings of Luther or Calvin. Something to think about but not ABSOLUTE truth ..Sola scriptura..

21 posted on 08/20/2002 9:55:18 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
***Well doc, that is a bit of an attempt to throw me off topic because I have already said that there is too much to cover. I would have to go and read the references for me to give you a list of which doctrine is taught where.***

First, you asked me for my comment on your post.

I replied to you that the article indicates there are doctrines (PLURAL) that Protestants were trying to avoid. The article only mentioned one issue prayer for the dead-purgatory and one passage consisting of four verses. I question the author's credibility at this key point and accusation. I asked for other examples.

If we are talking about four verses and one topic, fine just say so. If not, at least list the other key Catholic doctrines being avoided and maybe someone can help with the verses. Or list three other doctrines, or four to get the list started.

This is certainly not a moot point or a dodge on my part. The article made a claim that I think may well give the impression that there are many verses that Protestant reject because they disagree with doctrine contained.

Is that true? Or is it this doctrine and these four verses?

22 posted on 08/20/2002 10:08:29 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Indeed, I did ask you for commentary, but you want me to go back through the books and list what doctrine is taught where, and that is not a task I am capable of in one sitting. That is why I asked you to stay on what the author covers.

Obviously, the apostles referred repeatedly and often to the septuagint. What is contained within them was considered valuable enough that they were included in the OT until the Martin Luther came and axed them, and even then he used them as an appendix.

I tell you what. I will go and search around and come up with some other examples of doctrine Akin is referring to so we can proceed with your question. In the meantime, why do you think Luther axed Maccabees and why, if these 7 books were acceptable to the apostles, are they not acceptable to protestants?

23 posted on 08/20/2002 10:17:17 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Jesus never quoted them in His teachings..there is no NT teaching on this OT practice.

The apostles used them. Why were they wrong in doing so?

24 posted on 08/20/2002 10:18:11 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Okay. Here is what you are asking for:

From Maccabees we have references to 1)Purgatory and 2)indulgences.

From Judith we have references to 3)women as priests/or pastors.

And from Daniel we have references to 4) the papacy.

Which would you like to start with? And what is your answer to my previous question regarding the apostles?

25 posted on 08/20/2002 10:33:00 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Good start, except...

Daniel is not a part of Apocrypha, it is a part of the Bible. Also, I am aware of not passages in Daniel referencing the Pope. Was your reference to Bel and the Dragon or Daniel?

Second, Protestants see all believers as priests and the spiritual gift of pastor many Protestants would concede may be possessed by women.

So, unfortunately I think the list is back to one.
26 posted on 08/20/2002 10:44:48 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Second, Protestants see all believers as priests and the spiritual gift of pastor many Protestants would concede may be possessed by women.

We don't. Women aren't priests in the Catholic church. They are pastors to protestant churches though.

And indulgences? The papacy?

So far, we have not really figured out why protestants reject the books that the apostles used often. Why do they is my question? Not inspired? Well...were the apostles wrong? Was Christianity wrong for the first 1500 years?

27 posted on 08/20/2002 10:48:56 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Early fathers quoting the seven books... The Didache

"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome

"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

Irenaeus

"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

Hippolytus

"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

Cyprian of Carthage

"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] 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, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Augustine

"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).

Jerome

"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

Pope Innocent I

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

28 posted on 08/20/2002 10:57:37 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Great and informative post, JMJ. I'm sure you didn't expect controversy :)
29 posted on 08/20/2002 11:15:59 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Great and informative post, JMJ.
30 posted on 08/20/2002 11:16:21 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
good point. that is an excellent document
31 posted on 08/20/2002 11:17:18 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gophack
excellent job gophack
32 posted on 08/20/2002 11:18:40 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
What an odd question. I suppose it could be asked of the entire Bible. But to what end? Toss out all verses not strictly doctrinal?
33 posted on 08/20/2002 11:20:48 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Me...expect controversy...? Never. ;)

okay okay...I live for it!

34 posted on 08/20/2002 11:24:33 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
it appears to me you were correct earlier. There isnt a coherent response to be made. Attacking the author as unreliable, to be expected, and reinterpreting the texts to fit protestant rejection of Christian Dcotrine prior to the 16th century to explain away the other doctrinal verses you mentioned, to be expected...it is all smoke and mirrors.

There isn't a good counter-explanation; so, don't expect one :)

35 posted on 08/20/2002 11:26:39 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333

The Apocrypha, those books included in the Roman Catholic Canon, were
never quoted in the New Testament. The Apocrypha was accepted as part
of the Catholic Canon at the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546.

Canonicity aids the believer in accepting the books of the Bible as the
Word of God. These books are to be trusted and used in the believer's
everyday life. The Bible can and should be the central guide in our lives via
the application of It to our lives by the Holy Spirit.

DERICKSON’S NOTES
ON THEOLOGY
by Stanley L. Derickson

The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as their Bible, accepted
the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical. The Palestine Jews, on the other
hand, limited their canonical Scriptures to the Hebrew Old Testament.

INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPEDIA
VOL. 2
B-CYRUS

Tehillim (Psalm) 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

chuck <truth@Y'shuaHaMashiach>


36 posted on 08/20/2002 12:20:59 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Jesus never quoted them in His teachings..there is no NT teaching on this OT practice

The deuterocanonicals were in the OT Jesus and the apostles knew and used when they were teaching and preaching.

See this link Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament where there are 112 references to the deuterocanonical books in the 4 Gospels ALONE, and hundreds of references to the deuterocanonical books in the remainder of the NT.

It is clear from the article above, and the references I cite, that these seven books (and parts of Esther and Daniel) were used by the apostles to teach, and were in the bible they used to teach and spread the Gospel. If these books weren't intended by God to be in the Bible, why didn't Jesus say something about it? Why did the apostles teach using them?

It is clear that these books were always in the OT until a Jewish group removed them because they didn't like what they had to say. All early church fathers referenced these books.

Anyway, God bless you.

37 posted on 08/20/2002 12:30:08 PM PDT by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gophack
Common sense, schmmon sense..."I don't personally feel they are inspired...is enough of a basis to justify their being axed.

The Protestants try to turn the arguement on its head. "You Catholics need Macc that to prove...".when it is just the OPPOSITE. They were axed BECAUSE they taught Purgatory. The Protestants want to pretend we invented stuff to source our doctrine and so we included non-inspired texts to prove..blah blah blah. They are the ones that destroyed Scripture and they also want us to prove they shouldnt have done that...sheesh..it is such a pathetic tactic..and shameless as it is anti-historical, not just ahistorical

38 posted on 08/20/2002 12:45:06 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Sorry Chuck. I admire your html skills, but not your knowledge of the history of the Bible.

"The Council of Trent added the Deuterocanon to have Scriptural backup for its many false teachings, and in doing so contradicted the universal practice of Christianity up to that time."

The Council of Trent added nothing to the Old Testament, rather it simply re-affirmed the ancient practice of the Apostles and the decisions of the early Church through a universal dogmatic definition.

The 59th decree of the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD gives a list of the Old Testament books which is entirely identical with the decree of the Council of Trent. The Council of Rome in 383 AD and the Councils of Carthage 393, 397 and 419 AD all published canons again identical with that of the Council of Trent. So did Pope Innocent I in 405 AD, Pope Gelasius I in 495 AD, Pope Hormisdas in 520 AD and Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence in 1441. The practice of the separated Oriental Churches has likewise always been the same.

More information can be found here" "The Canon of the Bible"

Here is a quote from the introduction of the 1611 KJV Bible that I found interesting.

"The translation of the Seventy [Septuagint] dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither does it come near it, for perspicuity, gratuity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God."

39 posted on 08/20/2002 1:23:39 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Thanks for the back up while I went to pick up my son. And as a side note, My son got a 100% on his first vocabulary test. Woo hoo! =)))
40 posted on 08/20/2002 1:40:29 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-135 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson