What is the “Apocrypha”?

Fr. John Whiteford's Commentary and Reflections ^ | 07-19-2019 | Fr. John Whiteford

[NRx]

Question: "What do the terms "apocrypha" and "deuterocanonical" mean, and how does the Orthodox Church view them?"

The question of the Biblical canon is a somewhat complicated one, because it developed over a very long period of time, and there certainly have been some historical disagreements on the matter. The word "canon" comes the Greek word κανών, which means a measuring rod, or a rule. And so when we speak of the canon of Scripture, we are speaking of the lists of books that affirmed to be Scripture.

Christians have a precisely defined New Testament Canon, about which there is no dispute... at least not since the 4th century, and this is due in part because of a heretic by the name of Marcion who produced a very truncated New Testament canon, which included only the Gospel of Luke and some of the Epistles of St. Paul, which he edited to fit his heretical views. And then there were also heretical books that claimed to be written by Apostles, but which were not which the Church wanted to clearly reject. There was never any dispute about most of the books of the New Testament, but there were a few books that were not immediately accepted throughout the Church, but were eventually.

When it comes to the Old Testament canon, there is a precisely defined core canon, and fairly well defined next layer, and then less clearly defined edges. So why the precision in the case of the new, but not the Old? This is partly because there was not nearly as much controversy on the question, which is not to say that there were no disagreements, but the level of concern over these disagreements did not rise to nearly the same level. It was not until the time of the Protestant Reformation that this question did become a bigger issue, because for Protestants who generally took a low view of Tradition, whether or not a book was really part of Scripture became almost an all or nothing question. Either the book was Scripture, in which case it had all authority; or it was not scripture, in which case it had essentially no authority, though it might be a matter of some historical interest.

When we speak of the Canonical books of the Old Testament, or the "Protocanonical" books as Roman Catholics put it, we have general agreement. These books are the same as the books recognized by the Jews as Scripture. The only difference you find is that in some canonical lists the books of Baruch is sometimes listed as part of these books, and Esther is not.

But what are the names used for the "extra" books that are not part of the undisputed Old Testament Canon? Many early Fathers simply made no distinction, and referred to them as Scripture. Then you have some sources that refer to these books as "non-canonical"... but we will need to consider further what they really mean by that. St. Athanasius the Great referred to these books as "readable" books -- books not included in the Jewish canon, but which could be read in Church in the services. Then you have the term "Deuterocanonical," which is, I think, a useful term, but it is a Roman Catholic term that came into use to counter the Protestant rejection of these books. The implication of this name is that these books comprise a second Old Testament Canon, or you could say a list of canonical books which were known not to have been accepted by the Jews, but which were accepted by Christians. Then you have Protestants who labeled these books as "Apocrypha." To these terms we could add the term "Pseudepigrapha", which is a label applied to many texts that are almost universally rejected, but which claim the names of Old Testament saints as their authors.

There is a very interesting comment by Origen in his letter to Africanus (ANF v. IV, pp 386ff.), in which he responds to Africanus, who had asked him why he quoted from the portion of the book of Daniel which contains the story of Susanna, which is not found in the Hebrew text. Origen responds that he was not unaware of this fact (after all, he produced a six column text of the Old Testament,  the Hexapla, which was the first critical edition of the Old Testament, and which compared the Hebrew text with various Greek editions). Origen defended the authenticity of this portion of Daniel. His response is detailed, but let me highlight a few points:

"And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!  Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things?

In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, “Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.” Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings.  This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community. And I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them.  So far as to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew."

Two important points are made here: Christians should use the texts preserved by the Church, and not feel like we have to go cap in hand to the Jews to find out what the Bible is. However, it is important for us to know what texts they accept and do not, so that when speaking to them, we not appear to be ignorant, and thus harm our witness to them.

Skipping further on in the text we find Origen saying that the reason for many of the omissions in the Hebrew texts are because the Scribes and Pharisees omitted things that made them look bad:

"But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories?  The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha).  As an example, take the story told about Isaiah; and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books."

Here Origen gives an interesting meaning to the term "Apocrypha" (hidden books). His argument is that the story of Susanna was omitted in the Hebrew text because it made the Jewish elders look bad. If you look at the Wisdom of Solomon, you could see how they might also have had incentive to have hidden this book too.

"Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected" (Wisdom 2:12-20).

This is a very clear prophecy of the attitude which the Jewish leaders would take toward Christ. This text was used very effectively by Christians in the Early Church, and the Jews had good reason to want to dismiss it.

I think Origen puts his finger on the reason why many Fathers made a distinction between the "canonical" books of the Old Testament which the Jews accepted, and the books which they did not accept. Even to this day, you still find these books referred to as "non-canonical" by contemporary Orthodox writers, who mean by that only that they are not in the Jewish canon.

For example, Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy, in The Law of God, wrote:

"Besides the canonical books, a part of the Old Testament is composed of non-canonical books, sometimes called Apocrypha among non-Orthodox. These are books which the Jews lost and which are not in the contemporary Hebrew text of the Old Testament.  They are found in the Greek translations of the Old Testament, made by the 70 translators of the Septuagint three centuries before the birth of Christ (271 B.C.). These book have been included in the Bible from ancient times and are considered by the Church to be sacred Scripture. The translation of the Septuagint is accorded special respect in the Orthodox Church. The Slavonic translation of the Bible was made from it. 

To the non-canonical books of the Old Testament belong:

1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. The Wisdom of Solomon
4. Ecclesiasticus,  or the Wisdom of Sirach
5. Baruch
6. Three books of Maccabees
7. The Second and Third book of Esdras
8. The additions to the (Book of Esther,) II Chronicles (The Prayer of Manasseh) and Daniel (The Song of the Youths, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon)” (Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy, The Law Of God: For Study at Home and School (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996), p. 423).      

While generally, not much is made of a distinction between the "canonical" and "deuterocanonical" books in the Orthodox, some writers continue to argue that there is a distinction, such as Fr. Michael Pomazansky:

"The Church recognizes 38 books of the Old Testament. After the example of the Old Testament Church, several of these books are joined to form a single book, bringing the number to twenty-two books, according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. These books, which were entered at some time into the Hebrew canon, are called "canonical." To them are joined a group of "non-canonical" books-that is, those which were not included in the Hebrew canon because they were written after the closing of the canon of the sacred Old Testament books. The Church accepts these latter books also as useful and instructive and in antiquity assigned them for instructive reading not only in homes but also in churches, which is why they have been called "ecclesiastical." The Church includes these books in a single volume of the Bible together with the canonical books. As a source of the teaching of the faith, the Church puts them in a secondary place and looks on them as an appendix to the canonical books. Certain of them are so close in merit to the Divinely-inspired books that, for example, in the 85th Apostolic Canon the three books of Maccabees and the book of Joshua the son of Sirach are numbered together with the canonical books, and, concerning all of them together it is said that they are "venerable and holy." However, this means only that they were respected in the ancient Church; but a distinction between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament has always been maintained in the Church (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, trans. Fr. Serpahim (Rose), (Platina, CA: St. Herman Press, 1984), p. 26f).

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), on the other hand, says:

     "In contemporary editions of the Bible the books of the Old Testament are subdivided into those books that are canonical and those not canonical. Those books that fall under the canonical category are understood to be those of the Hebrew canon. This canon (i.e. the list of books recognized as holy in the Jewish tradition) was formed over centuries and was finally solidified in the year 90 CE by the Sanhedrin in the Galilean city of Jamnia. The canonical texts differ from the non-canonical in their antiquity; the former were written in the period between the fifteenth and fifth centuries BCE, while the latter were written between the fourth and first centuries BCE. As for the number of non-canonical books concerned there are the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 2 and 3 Esdras, the letter of Jeremiah, Baruch and 3 Maccabees, and also the Prayer of Manasseh at the end of 2 Chronicles, as well as various parts of the book of Esther, Psalm 151, and three fragments from the book of the Prophet Daniel (3.24-90, 13, 14).
     The Protestant Bible does not include the non-canonical books of the Old Testament, and in this way it differs from the Orthodox just as from the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible includes the non-canonical books under the category of "deuterocanonical" (this term was coined by the Council of Trent in 1546). For the Orthodox Christian, the difference between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament is of a conventional character inasmuch as the question is not about an Orthodox or Christian canon, but is about the Jewish canon, completed independently from Christianity. In the Orthodox Church, the basic criterion for the specific canonicity of this or that book in the Old Testament is its use in the divine services. In this regard one cannot consider the Wisdom of Solomon and those fragments of the book of Daniel which are absent from the Hebrew canon, but which hold an important place in Orthodox services, to be non-canonical. Sometimes the non-canonical books, from the viewpoint of the Hebrew canon and the "deutercanonical" Catholic canon, in Orthodox usage are called by the Greek term anaginoskomena, αναγινώσκωμένα (i.e. acknowledged, recommended reading).
     While all of the canonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the "seventy interpreters" made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the "Masoretic," was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition). Taking into account the three factors enumerated above, St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that "in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions" (Orthodox Christianity, Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, (New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2012) p. 33f).

To complicate matters further, if you look at the Russian Synodal Bible and compare with the standard Orthodox edition of the Bible in Greek, there are some books that included in one that are not in the other (the Greek Bible included 4th Maccabees, and the Russian Bible includes 2nd Esdras (also called 4th Esdras in some editions), and so what should we make of all of this?

If you think of the Tradition as a target, with concentric circles, you could put the Gospels in the middle, the writings of the apostles in the in the next ring, maybe the Law of Moses, in the next, the prophets in the next, the writings in the next, the deutrocanonical books in the next, the wrings of those who knew the Apostle in the next, the Ecumenical Canons in the next, etc. The only debate would be which ring to put them on... and ultimately, is that the most important question? For a Protestant, this is a huge question. For the Orthodox, it is not so much.

For most of the books in the Orthodox Bible, there is no question that they are Scripture in the full sense. The Deuterocanonical books are certainly Scripture as well, though some Fathers and some writers would argue that they have secondary authority. Then there are some books that are included more along the lines of being appendices to the Scriptures (4th Maccabees and 2nd Esdras). They all are part of the larger Tradition, and they all have to be understood within the context of that larger Tradition -- and that is the key thing to keep in mind.

For more information, see:

Stump the Priest: The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text

This discussion with Gary Michuta (a Roman Catholic apologists) is of interest:

He has also written a book entitled "The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments," which has a lot of useful information on this subject.

[daniel1212]

While there were voices that disputed the status of the Deuterocanonical books, these had no real impact on the beliefs and practices of the faithful.

Meaning dissident voices versus the faithful I suppose, but the status of the Deuterocanonical books among faithful was that they were disputable, and Luther had that freedom.

And the extensive research testifies to the 39 book (equating to the 22/24 book canon of the Pharisees) Protestant canon as having the greatest magisterial antiquity. Which even Catholic sources affirm.

[Petrosius]

It is interesting where you end your quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The author continues:

The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament. Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received.

For an understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium you need to look beyond the disputes of academics and look at the day-to-day teachings and practices of the Church. These show that the Deuterocanonical books were received by the Church on an equal basis as the Protocanonical.

Even if we were to accept your premise, all you could show is that there was no consensus on the status the the Deuterocanonical books. So while you might object to the charge that Luther removed these books from the Bible, you would also have to admit that Trent did not add them. All that could be said that they were disputed and that the Protestants fell on one side of this dispute, and that Catholics fell on the other. But here Protestants still have a dilemma. While Catholics can appeal to the authority of the Church to settle this dispute, Protestants can appeal to no authority to support their position. Even an appeal to the consensus of the faithful does not work since, compared to Catholics and the Orthodox, Protestants are in the minority among the Christian faithful.

[Elsie]

The NT contains many references and quotes from the OT as handed to us by the JEWS.

Are there any of them that point to any of the books found in the apocrypha?

[Elsie]

I could find none here-—> https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

[boatbums]

Church councils are rare and exceptional events. Given the great expense and effort in holding one, they are used only to discuss pressing matters of the faith. They are not called to settle disputes among academics. While there were voices that disputed the status of the Deuterocanonical books, these had no real impact on the beliefs and practices of the faithful. The Deuterocanonical books were included in the volumes of the Vulgate Bible and were used in the liturgies of the Church, all without distinction between them and the Protocanonical books.

Not true. That they were even called "deuterocanonical" (second canon) implies that they were NOT recognized as Divinely-inspired Scripture as were the Protocanonical books (first canon). People knew good and well that those who were supposed as writers of the Deuteroes never claimed Divine inspiration, never saw themselves as prophets of the Lord and acknowledged that there were errors in them. Even Jerome in the fourth century stated these books were not to be used to define doctrines of the Christian faith. It his Latin translation (the Vulgate) they were placed in a separate section between the Old Testament and the New Testament books.

It was only with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation that the idea of rejecting these books became popular, thus the need for a dogmatic statement at Trent.

Again, simply NOT true! See reasons stated above. Luther included those books in his German translation of the Bible so anyone who tells you he threw them out is plainly ignorant or lying. Trent's "dogmatic" declaration of the RC canon declaring the Deuterocanoncials/Apocryphals as inspired writings not only proved - as Daniel1212 has shown (repeatedly) - that there was permissible disagreement on the status and authority of these books but also that they were NEEDED to try to prove a Biblical basis for the doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences. It wasn't until John Henry Newman's explanation of the "development of doctrine" that Catholicism dropped its insistence that all her doctrines agreed with Scripture and had the unanimous consent of the fathers. Many Protestant churches continue to read and use these books in liturgy and as edification for the people. This does not mean that they recognize they have authority in matters of doctrine - just as Jerome and others acknowledged from the start. You want to read them? Fine. Just don't presume they are Holy Spirit inspired and binding upon all Christians. They aren't!

[boatbums]

While Catholics can appeal to the authority of the Church to settle this dispute, Protestants can appeal to no authority to support their position. Even an appeal to the consensus of the faithful does not work since, compared to Catholics and the Orthodox, Protestants are in the minority among the Christian faithful.

That's just it, we don't need to appeal to any church authority to know what writings are from God! The authority of the Word of God is intrinsic because it IS the word of God. The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth and God's sheep hear His voice in the Holy Scriptures. They have power, for example:

Hebrews 4:12 ESV
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Romans 10:17 ESV
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Romans 1:16 ESV
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Acts 20:32 ESV
And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

1 Peter 1:23 ESV
Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

James 1:22 ESV
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 ESV
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Jeremiah 15:16 ESV
Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart, for I am called by your name, O Lord, God of hosts.

Psalm 119:105 ESV
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

John 17:17 ESV
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Psalm 119:11 ESV
I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.

Matthew 4:4 ESV
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Joshua 1:8 ESV
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

[Luircin]

Thank you for not addressing my point that many RCs before and during Luther’s time were doing the same thing, and they’re still embraced.

Ignoring truth won’t make it go away; it just makes you look bad for ignoring it.

[Luircin]

So what you’re telling me is that everything Roman Catholicism says is true solely because it comes from Roman Catholicism?

[Luircin]

The man is very good at ignoring things he doesn’t like to hear.

Still hasn’t replied to the copypaste of the church fathers teaching sola fide either, and I posted that over a week ago.

[daniel1212]

The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

It is interesting where you end your quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The author continues:...Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom....

So just how does that "interesting" section contradict what I said, since what you do not include is that the Greeks "about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins, except that it took in the apocryphal III Machabees?"

The issue here has been the fact that, as said, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.

Which contradicts the standard Cath. propaganda that Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.

The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament.

And then some.

1 Esdras (Greek: Ἔσδρας Αʹ), also First Esdras, Greek Esdras, Greek Ezra, or 3 Esdras, is an ancient Greek version of the biblical Book of Ezra in use among the early church, and many modern Christians with varying degrees of canonicity..As part of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, it is now regarded as canonical in the churches of the East, but apocryphal in the West;..

According to Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, Augustine of Hippo considered it canonical, citing 1 Esdras as canonical 'Ezra' in 'The City of God' at 18:36. [11] Bogaert maintains that under Augustine's influence, it was one of the 'two books of Ezra' (alongside Ezra–Nehemiah) listed in the Biblical canon lists of the Synod of Hippo of 393, and the Council of Carthage of 397.[12][13] Jerome however, considered it as one of the "variety of versions" (exemplaria varietas)[14] of Hebrew 'Ezra' found in the Septuagint, and did not translate it separately from Ezra–Nehemiah.[15][16] Hence, as Jerome's Vulgate version of the bible gradually achieved dominance in Western Christianity, so 1 Esdras no longer circulated, and ceased to be considered canonical in the West. From the 13th century onwards, Vulgate bibles produced in Paris reintroduced a Latin text of 1 Esdras, in response to commercial demand; but the Council of Trent excluded it from its authoritative definition of the canon of the Western Church. Clement VIII placed it in an appendix to the Vulgate along with 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh "lest they perish entirely".[17] However, the use of the book continued in the Eastern Church, and it remains a part of the Eastern Orthodox canon. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Esdras

All of which further testifies to an unsettled canon, as well as a lack of uniformity of the Vulgate (which, while Trent affirmed it as the official RC Bible, yet it could not say which version: " if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic," thus resulting in the scandal of the fanatical papal translator, Pope Sixtus V, with his the Sistine Vulgate, while other differing versions would follow.

The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) , an edition of the Vulgate printed in the 1450s in Latin by Johannes Gutenberg, mixes the apocrypha into the Old Testament, with the Prayer of Manasses following 2 Paralipomenon, and 3 and 4 Esdras following 1 Esdras and Nehemias. The Prayer of Solomon follows Ecclesiasticus. It thus has 50 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New, for a total of 77 books.

Meanwhile i also read that Jerome's prologues were typically included in medieval copies of the Vulgate. And in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings he states,

“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states, “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)

For an understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium you need to look beyond the disputes of academics and look at the day-to-day teachings and practices of the Church. These show that the Deuterocanonical books were received by the Church on an equal basis as the Protocanonical.

Which also means you are anachronistically reading later detailed legislation on the differences btwn magisterial levels and required assent, or wrongly assuming the canon was officially settled and making making the likes of Athanasius of Alexandria (bishop of Alexandria; Cath. church "father;" c. 367), Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop of Jerusalem; doctor of the Cath church; d. circa. 385 AD), Council of Laodicea (363), bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310–320 – 403), Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390; bishop of Nazianzus), Hilary of Poitiers, (c. 310 – c. 367; bishop of Poitiers and a doctor of the Cath church), John of Damascus (patriarch of Constantinople, 9th century), Melito of Sardis (bishop of Sardis, 4th c.) and Origen (Cath. church "father" and thelogian; c. 184 – c. 253), Rufinus (344/345–411; historian, and theologian), Cardinals Seripando, Caietan, Ximenes, (16th c.) etc. with being in dissent, not rendering the required religious assent of intellect and will.

Meanwhile if you want to go by past official RC teaching then you cannot be debating RC doctrine here.

Even if we were to accept your premise, all you could show is that there was no consensus on the status the the Deuterocanonical books. So while you might object to the charge that Luther removed these books from the Bible, you would also have to admit that Trent did not add them.

Rather, as argued, there was no settled, indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, who had substantial and even current scholarly and historical support for his own opinion in that regard, contrary to the standard Cath. propaganda, as seen earlier here.

But here Protestants still have a dilemma. While Catholics can appeal to the authority of the Church to settle this dispute, Protestants can appeal to no authority to support their position.

This indeed is the real argument, yet one that was tried upstream already, but the fact remains that since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation (which shows how they understood the OT and gospels), then she has no infallible authority (though as said, even secular powers can make rules for those under it).

And of course, the very premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is itself novel and unScriptural, nowhere seen or promised or essential for authority and preserving faith.

However, I understand that the Catholic premise is that Scripture (and valid tradition and history) only consist of and mean what she says, for which it is argued that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical corporate instruments and magisterial stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Would you agree with that, and so that any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God, and thus damned as Florence etc. states?

Even an appeal to the consensus of the faithful does not work since, compared to Catholics and the Orthodox, Protestants are in the minority among the Christian faithful.

That is a contradiction in terms, re. "Christian faithful," and the numbers are claim, and since the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive definitive source and description of what constitutes a christian is the New Testament, which excludes most Catholics as well as liberals Prots. And the reported the numbers for both (1.3 billion Catholics out of 2.4 billing "Christian") include multitudes who are not faithful, unless you want to Teddy K RCs and Jimmy C as such.

But if you want to invoke consensus of the faithful based upon the members counted as Catholic, then since the majority whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death testify to being liberal, then you have a real problem if you are one of the conservative class.

[daniel1212]

Thought I would post this of a good movie if anyone needs to rest: https://tubitv.com/movies/372434/letters_to_god

Praying for healing of a fatherless young one in a Christian family who was operated on for a brain tumor. but they could not get it all. Has a hard time walking, but has had a good attitude, thank God.

[Elsie]

Still hasn’t replied to the copypaste of the church fathers teaching sola fide either, and I posted that over a week ago.

---

"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle?
For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.
Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher."

 Augustine  (De bono viduitatis)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

X

[Petrosius]

Would this be the same Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo, who wrote the following:

As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, . . .For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity or superstitious vacillation of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church. (Letter to Januarius, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3; cf. NPNF I, I:301)

I believe that this practice [of not rebaptizing heretics and schismatics] comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commanded and handed down by the Apostles themselves. (On Baptism, 2, 7, 12; from William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3: 66; cf. NPNF I, IV:430)

. . . the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings. (On Baptism, 5,23:31, in NPNF I, IV:475)

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? (On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, 1:34, in NPNF I, V:28)

[F]rom whatever source it was handed down to the Church – although the authority of the canonical Scriptures cannot be brought forward as speaking expressly in its support. (Letter to Evodius of Uzalis, Epistle 164:6, in NPNF I, I:516)

The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants [is] certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except Apostolic. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 10,23:39, in William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3: 86)

God has placed this authority first of all in his Church. (Explanations of the Psalms, Tract 103:8, PL 37:520-521, in Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, New York: Macmillan, 1967, 392)

But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers, and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church. (On the Trinity, 4,6:10; NPNF I, III:75)

It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true. (Sermon 117, 6)

Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will separate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved . . . ? (Against Julian I:7,34; in Robert B. Eno, Teaching Authority in the Early Church, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984, 136)

And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope, and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces. (On Christian Doctrine, I, 39:43, in NPNF I, II:534)

And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants. (On Baptism, 4, 24, 32; NPNF I, IV:461)

It is not to be doubted that the dead are aided by prayers of the holy church, and by the salutary sacrifice, and by the alms, which are offered for their spirits . . . For this, which has been handed down by the Fathers, the universal church observes. (Sermon 172, in Joseph Berington and John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, three volumes, London: Dolman, 1846; I: 439)

To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you; thus, since Holy Scripture cannot be mistaken, anyone fearing to be misled by the obscurity of this question has only to consult on this same subject this very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity. (Against Cresconius I:33; in Robert B. Eno, Teaching Authority in the Early Church, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984, 134)

[L]et the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church . . . (On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2, NPNF I, II:557)

[Luircin]

Which just shows that Augustine was inconsistent.

So much for ‘unanimous consent.’

[daniel1212]

The New Testament contains no list of the canon of Scripture.

Which means what? That this is somehow contrary to SS? That souls cannot discern what writings are of God find in it them the object of their faith apart from implicit faith in your church? And that if we concur with her on the NT canon then we must also do so as regards the OT? For these are Catholic polemics.

[boatbums]

There is an obvious pattern here. They will make assertions based upon what they have read and heard from Catholic "apologists" and when confronted with actual facts, they'll disappear from the thread and lie in wait for the next opportunity to reassert the same now-proven incorrect/false talking points. How many times has the "Luther took books out of the Bible" canard been refuted here? I'd say we're getting close to a hundred!

[ealgeone]

There is an obvious pattern here. They will make assertions based upon what they have read and heard from Catholic "apologists" and when confronted with actual facts, they'll disappear from the thread and lie in wait for the next opportunity to reassert the same now-proven incorrect/false talking points. How many times has the "Luther took books out of the Bible" canard been refuted here? I'd say we're getting close to a hundred!

I'd venture it's become a "mortal" sin for the RCs to continue to post the debunked lie.

[Petrosius]

Which just shows that Augustine was inconsistent.

So much for ‘unanimous consent.’

No, it just shows that you have taken his comments out of context. In his opening statement he said that he was addressing widowhood:

Not any longer to be in debt of my promise to your request and love in Christ, I have seized the occasion as I could, amid other my very pressing engagements, to write to you somewhat concerning the profession of holy widowhood, forasmuch as, when I was present, you laded me with entreaty, and, when I had not been able to deny you this, you often by letters demanded my promise.

The statement of his that you quoted was not intended to a universal principle, but only as regards to the subject of widowhood. But as usual, as they do with Scripture, Protestants take a statement out of context and absolutize it to prove their point, ignoring all the other statements to the contrary. This is how they come to the conclusion of sola fide. There are plenty of passages in the Bible that indicate that sola fide is not true, but Protestants either pretend that they are not there, or twist them to deny their plain meaning. While Protestants accuse Catholics of putting Tradition above Scripture, it is they who place their own tradition—sola fide—above Scripture.

[Luircin]

The church fathers taught sola fide.

You still haven’t replied to the quotes I gave you to prove it last thread.