The Catholic Bible

[jillpole]

Hey I asked a question about why the Catholic Bible has extra books in the Catholic section and wanted to get a different view. It is very interesting what they said and I do believe it but I want to make sure I get the whole story. So does anyone know in this section why the Catholic Bible has extra books? (as in maccabbes and susanah and all that.) thanks!

[Entertaining_Angels]

We've got our catholic bible and while I think of the apocrypha as interesting reading historically, they aren't necessarily biblically sound. I tend to think they were included after the Reformation to justify catholicism and the traditions of men.

I'm sure you'll get much more detailed answers but that basically sums up my thoughts on it.

[ukok]

If I may interject, from a Catholic position. It is not that the Catholic Church 'added' books to the Holy Bible, rather that Martin Luther took the books of which you are referring to, out of the Bible (and he tried to take even more but was defeated by those who sought to dissuade him).

God Bless.

[Auntie]

Jill, to the best of my knowledge, it is because the Catholic Church(way back when before there was such a thing as non-Catholic Christians), decided which writings were Holy Scripture. Then years later, after the reformation, some non-Catholics removed some books.

I might be wrong about this, but I think I'm right :) .

[Auntie]

If I may interject, from a Catholic position. It is not that the Catholic Church 'added' books to the Holy Bible, rather that Martin Luther took the books of which you are referring to, out of the Bible (and he tried to take even more but was defeated by those who sought to dissuade him).

God Bless.



What she said..... :) Hi ukok :wave: :hug:

[ukok]

p.s. it appears that you asked about the Catholic Bible in the Anglican forum and not OBOB, please feel frr to pass by and ask the Catholics in OBOB who are in allegience to Rome and to the Holy Father, if you desire to read responses from Roman Catholics in union with Rome.

[ukok]

What she said..... :) Hi ukok :wave: :hug:

Hiya, Auntie! :)

[Entertaining_Angels]

I agree if you are interested in the catholic perspective, you should ask in the catholic forum. I was catholic for many years, did the catholic school thing, worked in a rectory so on and so forth, and you will get a much different answer.

By the way, I'll be the lone voice of dissent here :D historical writings by many including catholics point to the fact that these hidden books were not considered to be a part of God's Word and were treated simply as historical writings.

I went by what the NT says about testing everything when I was unsure about the apocrypha and found the books didn't line up with what I found in the Bible so I treat them simply as historical texts. They are certainly interesting to read.

[arunma]

If I may interject, from a Catholic position. It is not that the Catholic Church 'added' books to the Holy Bible, rather that Martin Luther took the books of which you are referring to, out of the Bible (and he tried to take even more but was defeated by those who sought to dissuade him).

God Bless.

You may be interested to know that Saint Athanasius wrote down a canon in an epistle of his (from 367 AD). In it, he properly listed the 27 books of the New Testament, and the "Protestant" Old Testament. The only exception was that he placed Esther in the Apocrypha, and Baruch in the canon. Furthermore, he listed the Apocrypha separately, and stated that these were heretical works that should only be read for educational purposes.

Just something to think about.

[Auntie]

Jill, here's a link to OBOB, "One Bread One Body", the Catholic Forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/f26-one-bread-one-body-catholic.html


Feel free to ask questions and fellowship, but no debate is allowed there. It's usually a very peaceful forum and most of the members are very nice :) .

[ukok]

You may be interested to know that Saint Athanasius wrote down a canon in an epistle of his (from 367 AD). In it, he properly listed the 27 books of the New Testament, and the "Protestant" Old Testament. The only exception was that he placed Esther in the Apocrypha, and Baruch in the canon. Furthermore, he listed the Apocrypha separately, and stated that these were heretical works that should only be read for educational purposes.

Just something to think about.

Could you please cite a reference to support your post. Thankyou

Also, I would be so bold as to suggest to you, that Catholics do not believe that St. Athanasius had the definitive last word on the canon of the old testament.

Here are some excerpts of our Catholic forefathers comments regarding the Old Testament Canon.


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; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, 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

" 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, 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 [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], 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" ([i]Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).



Augustine

"God converted [King Assuerus] and turned the latter's indignation into gentleness [Es. 15:11]" (The Grace of Christ and Original Sin 1:24:25 [A.D. 418]; this passage is not in the Protestant Bible).

Something to think about :)

God Bless.

[arunma]

Could you please cite a reference to support your post. Thankyou

Also, I would be so bold as to suggest to you, that Catholics do not believe that St. Athanasius had the definitive last word on the canon of the old testament.

I can certainly provide a reference. It's the 39th festal epistle of Athanasius. Here it is:



As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth. The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles, counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras . After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.

Of the New Testament these are the books [then follows the complete list ending with "the Apocalypse of John"]. These are the fountains of salvation, that whoso thirsteth, may be satisfied by the eloquence which is in them. In them alone ([i]en toutois monois) is set forth the doctrine of piety. Let no one add to them, nor take aught therefrom. I also add for further accuracy that there are certain other books, not edited in the Canon, but established by the Fathers, to be read by those who have just come to us and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Doctrine (Didakh) of the Apostles and the Pastor. And let none of the Apocrypha of the heretics be read among you.

Here are some excerpts of our Catholic forefathers comments regarding the Old Testament Canon.

Well, the cool thing about being a Baptist is that I can look to the church fathers for guidance without considering their beliefs to be on par with Scripture. But it's not really a big deal; I'm not one of those Catholic-bashing Baptists.

[Asaph]

Could you please cite a reference to support your post. Thankyou

Also, I would be so bold as to suggest to you, that Catholics do not believe that St. Athanasius had the definitive last word on the canon of the old testament.

Here are some excerpts of our Catholic forefathers comments regarding the Old Testament Canon.

[/b]

Something to think about :)

God Bless.

As is the price of tea in China. Though not so much as it used to be.

Asaph

[jillpole]

why thank you everyone... it is wonderful to get different views on the same topic and see that they are all very similar. Now I know and i think I might go out and get a Catholic Bible so i can read these "extra" books!!!

[ukok]

why thank you everyone... it is wonderful to get different views on the same topic and see that they are all very similar. Now I know and i think I might go out and get a Catholic Bible so i can read these "extra" books!!!

You are very welcome!

You will find the complete Bilbe a complete joy, i'm sure!

God Bless. :wave:

[BBAS 64]

Hey I asked a question about why the Catholic Bible has extra books in the Catholic section and wanted to get a different view. It is very interesting what they said and I do believe it but I want to make sure I get the whole story. So does anyone know in this section why the Catholic Bible has extra books? (as in maccabbes and susanah and all that.) thanks!

Good Day, Jill

At Trent the RCC set the "canon" for it's own denomination, which is larger than that of the Jewish canon.


Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.

The view of a larger "Alexandrian" canon, is doubtful.


[i]There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Law”, Nebi'im, “Prophets”, and Ketubim, other “Writings”. The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 2422 books correspond 39 books, called “protocanonical”. The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek — called the Septuagint — which was adopted by Christians.

Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of “Writings”, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#3.%20Formation%20of%20the%20Christian%20Canon

There is very little historical backing for the larger canon used by the RCC.


Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

If the RCC wishes to define a canon for it's self, that is thier prorogitive. I think they err in doing so seeing I am not part of that denomination I am not bound to such teachings. I will stick to the more restictive Hebrew cannon, that historically shows it self to be true.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

Could you please cite a reference to support your post. Thankyou

Also, I would be so bold as to suggest to you, that Catholics do not believe that St. Athanasius had the definitive last word on the canon of the old testament.

Here are some excerpts of our Catholic forefathers comments regarding the Old Testament Canon.

[/b]

Something to think about :)

God Bless.

Good Day, Ukok

It may be the the currect view of some Catholic's view Athanasius in a different light then that seem from some of his peers.

Basil:


"As time moves on, it continually confirms the opinion which I have long held of your holiness; or rather that opinion is strengthened by the daily course of events. Most men are indeed satisfied with observing, each one, what lies especially within his own province; not thus is it with you, but your anxiety for all the Churches is no less than that which you feel for the Church that has been especially entrusted to you by our common Lord; inasmuch as you leave no interval in speaking, exhorting, writing, and despatching emissaries, who from time to time give the best advice in each emergency as it arises. Now, from the sacred ranks of your clergy, you have sent forth the venerable brother Peter, whom I have welcomed with great joy. I have also approved of the good object of his journey, which he manifests in accordance with the commands of your excellency, in effecting reconciliation where he finds opposition, and bringing about union instead of division. With the object of offering some contribution to the action which is being taken in this matter, I have thought that I could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your excellency, as to the head and chief of all, and treating you as alike adviser and commander in the enterprise. I have therefore determined to send to your reverence our brother Dorotheus the deacon, of the Church under the right honourable bishop Meletius, being one who at once is an energetic supporter of the orthodox faith, and is earnestly desirous of seeing the peace of the Churches. The results, I hope, will be, that, following your suggestions (which you are able to make with the less likelihood of failure, both from your age and your experience in affairs, and because you have a greater measure than all others of the aid of the Spirit), he may thus attempt the achievement of our objects....The present state of affairs makes it specially necessary that attention should be called to him [the heretic Marcellus], so that those who seek for their opportunity, may be prevented from getting it, from the fact of sound men being united to your holiness, and all who are lame in the true faith may be openly known; that so we may know who are on our side, and may not struggle, as in a night battle, without being able to distinguish between friends and foes....you will yourself give more complete attention to all these matters, so soon as, by the blessing of God, you find every one entrusting to you the responsibility of securing the peace of the Church." (Letter 69:1-2)

The Church at his time was entrusted to Athanasius, he was the head, the commander and the chief, it is not historically incorrect to see that the church of his time would have looked to him for instuction. Because he could identify the "lame of the Faith", resulting from his greater measure of the Sprit than others.

As to the role of early councils, history shows that they have been reduced to correction by Jerome.

Cardinal Cajetan:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.

Peace to u,

Bill

[knee-v]

A little something else to think about:

The RCC and the EOC have been separate for almost 1000 years now. And at the time of the Reformation and the Council of Trent, they had been separated for about 500 years. Even before the "schism" of 1054AD, the East and West had very little contact and were growing apart for centuries.

That being the case, if the RCC "added" these books at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, why does the East also use those books? These books have been used by the Eastern Church LONG before the Council of Trent. And Trent is not even an Orthodox Council. They were not "added" at Trent. Rather, their canonicity was affirmed, for the East has always used them.

And individuals may have differing oppinions. But when the Church comes together for a council, that council voices the consensus of the entire church. And various councils have affirmed the Canon used the the RCC and EOC throughout history. The very same canon that the Apostles used when they were evangelizing the Greek-speaking world.

[twistedsketch]

The reason for the OT apocryphal books is they appeared in the Septuigant (Greek translation of the OT) and this was spread across the known world because Jews were either exiled or spreading their faith. But these books haven't been found in Hebrew OT texts to my knowledge.

Oh, and for balance once, I read the 2 Maccabes passage the Catholics use for Purgatory (if I am correct the Eastern Orthodox church does not have Purgatory). The passage is a very weak indicator of such a place at best, and even IF it is Scriptural, what Jesus did on the cross made it obsolete.

[plmarquette]

Hey I asked a question about why the Catholic Bible has extra books in the Catholic section and wanted to get a different view. It is very interesting what they said and I do believe it but I want to make sure I get the whole story. So does anyone know in this section why the Catholic Bible has extra books? (as in maccabbes and susanah and all that.) thanks!

" extra books - 7 ea. " .... taken out when King James version written ....
1,2 Macabees ( history ofMacabeean revolt , prior to take over by Rome) ; Tobit ( myth ) 7 men & same wife story asked Jesus by Pharisees ; Judith ; Sirach ; Baruch , & Wisdom [ similar to Ecclesiastes / Proverbs ]

Tyndale , Wycliffe , Calvin , Luther , Cromwell , etc. placed the 7 books in question between Malachi and Matthew .... they bring us up to speed with what is going on in that part of the world ...rise of Pharisee's and Saducees , Macabeean revolt ..... history , poetry , myth .... 400 years without prophets before the coming of Christ Jesus , in Matthew ;)

[BBAS 64]

A little something else to think about:

The RCC and the EOC have been separate for almost 1000 years now. And at the time of the Reformation and the Council of Trent, they had been separated for about 500 years. Even before the "schism" of 1054AD, the East and West had very little contact and were growing apart for centuries.

That being the case, if the RCC "added" these books at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, why does the East also use those books? These books have been used by the Eastern Church LONG before the Council of Trent. And Trent is not even an Orthodox Council. They were not "added" at Trent. Rather, their canonicity was affirmed, for the East has always used them..

Good Day, knee-v


Would not Athanasius be considered eastern? He viewed these books as non-canonical, read yes but canon no.

As did
John of Damascus :Concerning Scripture

... Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.

affirmed? how do you affirm that witch was in doubt?

And individuals may have differing oppinions. But when the Church comes together for a council, that council voices the consensus of the entire church. And various councils have affirmed the Canon used the the RCC and EOC throughout history. The very same canon that the Apostles used when they were evangelizing the Greek-speaking world.

As, I have posted the historical view is that the councils have been corrected by Jerome. A council voices a consensus on what basis, there was no consensus to be voiced. There is little to no historical basis for many claims you have made here. As I have pointed them out it is doubful a larger canon exsisted amoung the Jews.


Peace to u,

Bill

[Thursday]

BBAS why do you think then, that the East accepts the same books as the Catholics as inspired?

[BBAS 64]

BBAS why do you think then, that the East accepts the same books as the Catholics as inspired?

Good Day, Thursday

{that is today} :clap:


It is my understanding that th EO, holds to a wider [OT]canon than that of the RCC.

It is true that the EO canon contains the "subset" often seen in the RCC. I think it is a fundemental error of the historical record, and a mis understanding of how councils were viewed in the early church. Take the local council of Rome who pronouced a "canon". One of the attendies of that council wrote in direct contradiction to that canon, which he helped to collect, How is that?

I have yet to find any one correcting him on the issue why?

Peace to u,

Bill

[Thursday]

In it, he properly listed the 27 books of the New Testament, and the "Protestant" Old Testament. The only exception was that he placed Esther in the Apocrypha, and Baruch in the canon.

BBAS,

Don't you think this is a bit misleading? If he took out Esther, and included Baruch, then it is not the Protestant canon, is it? All you need is one exception to make it a different canon.

[Thursday]

It is my understanding that th EO, holds to a wider [OT]canon than that of the RCC. Yes, some of them accept one more psalm, and one more book. I do not know why they do this, but the fact remains that no Eastern Orthodox Christian would say that Catholics have uninspired books. Considering that many believe Catholics added books at Trent, this reduces the Trent theory to nothing.

It is true that the EO canon contains the "subset" often seen in the RCC. I think it is a fundemental error of the historical record, and a mis understanding of how councils were viewed in the early church. Take the local council of Rome who pronouced a "canon". One of the attendies of that council wrote in direct contradiction to that canon, which he helped to collect, How is that? You need to be more specific. Names, dates? :)

[Thursday]

why thank you everyone... it is wonderful to get different views on the same topic and see that they are all very similar. Now I know and i think I might go out and get a Catholic Bible so i can read these "extra" books!!!
Dear Jill,

If I may make one recommendation, read the book of Wisdom, sometimes called "The Wisdom of Solomon." It is rich with treasures! :)
On a totally unrelated note, is your screenname from one of C.S. Lewis' books? Eustace's friend Jill at school? Forgive me if I'm way off!

[Thursday]

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.

So, is this why you accept the Protestant canon? Because Jerome agrees with it? Do you know that after this quote was written Jerome submitted to the Church's decision? Do you feel that Cardinal Cajetan's statements carry any real weight? Just looking for consistency ;)

[knee-v]

Jillpole,
I am also a big fan of the Chronicles of Narnia. I have read them many times and plan to read them many more.

I agree with Thursday in regards to reading the book of Wisdom. My first time reading it I was blown away. It is truly one of the most profound books of the OT. I can't understand how someone could NOT view that book as scripture. Take a look at my profile and read the verses that I put as my favorite. They are a passage from the book of Wisdom. After reading that, read the first several verses of Hebrews. You will see striking similarities. You can pretty much take the word "wisdom" from that passage in Wisdom and replace it with "Christ", or "the Word". There are other places in Wisdom which are a paraphrase of Romans 1 (or else Romans 1 is a paraphrase of sections of Wisdom). Also in Romans (somewhere in 9-11), Paul gives the anology of the clay talking back to the potter, and that the potter makes from one lump vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor. That passage in Romans is almost directly word-for-word from Wisdom.

So I would strongly recommend giving the deuterocanonicals a read.

[BBAS 64]

Yes, some of them accept one more psalm, and one more book. I do not know why they do this, but the fact remains that no Eastern Orthodox Christian would say that Catholics have uninspired books. Considering that many believe Catholics added books at Trent, this reduces the Trent theory to nothing.

You need to be more specific. Names, dates? :)

Good Day, Thursday

I will look up the Person whom I refered to from council of Rome.

You assume that prior to Tent that was a universal understanding of what the canon was I have quote some people before Trent. Historically it is clear there was doubt as to the "canon" I have quoted much on this, and it can not be denied.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

So, is this why you accept the Protestant canon? Because Jerome agrees with it? Do you know that after this quote was written Jerome submitted to the Church's decision? Do you feel that Cardinal Cajetan's statements carry any real weight? Just looking for consistency ;)

I accept the Jewish Cannon as did Jerome, seeing I am not bound to the teaching of Rome. I have said they have a right to proclaim their own if they so chose, but are in error IMO.


I would like to see a quote from Jerome that he changed his mind on the issue of the OT canon, if he did then show me where. It is true he put them in the Vulgate as he was requested to do, but we can see if after doing so his view remained the same and stated so it the Vulgate

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon


The bigger question is then "if" as you assert the councils before Jerome's time knew what canon was infallibly, why then did they allow these comments "errors" to stand?

The Cardinal's comments serve as a historical of how the council of Rome, and others "pre Trent" that declared a canon were viewed by people in commuon with Rome. You will notice he says the councils stand corrected by Jerome, does he view the councils as infallible the same way you do?

Did any one view the councils as infallible on this issue, if so whom corrected the Cardinal on his error? Did no one stand for the truth as taught by the early councils? Was there no authority to protect the cardinal from his error?

Peace to u,

Bill

[jillpole]

Thank you everyone so much!!

yes Thursday and Knee-V. My screen name is from the Chroncles of Narnia! I love them so much!!! very good books!