Deuterocannon

[mark46]

The additional OT books are not necessary for doctrinal teaching.

Certainly, they are not necessary for the teaching of doctrines of salvation. How they are indeed holy books and part of the bible.

Obviously, one can choose to ignore the lessons in Wisdom, Sirach and Macabees.

As the Anglicans teach,

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.[/FONT]
​

 

[Standing Up]

Also known by protestants as simply the "Apocrypha" I have come to realize that through the disuse of these books, some fairly "core" teachings such as "Intercession of Saints" and "prayers for the Dead" are missing, now I was hoping I could see a discussion on WHY it was felt appropriate to take these books from the bible?

Here's why there are no direct quotes in scripture; iow, why they were excluded in the early church.

4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets.679

679 The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished. Malachi—the last of them—uttered his prophecies at the end of Artaxerxes’ or at the beginning of Darius’ reign. It was commonly held among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi the prophetical spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who followed them.
​

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This period from cArtaxerxes to cJesus is commonly known as the 400 years of silence from Malachi's prophecy of "elijah" to John the Baptist's conception/fulfillment.

There were other books written of course, but weren't considered inspired.

PS. 1 Macc 14 (iirc) confirms this belief that there weren't 'valid prophets' at the time of its writing.

PPS Before folks go on about using Jewish sources, weren't Peter or Paul, or gasp, Jesus, Jewish?

 

[SummaScriptura]

1. The EO and the OO has included more than 66 books since the beginning. Why do you care about what was decided at Trent?

2. So, if you found out that 1st Macabees was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, than you would agree that tyou argument was unsound? BTW, the OT was NOT written only in Hebrew. It was also written in Aramaic. Also the OT used by Paul was likely the Greek Septuagint.

3. Please apply this nonesense to the book of Esther where God is not even mentioned. There are many writers who do CLAIM inpiration.

4. Ah, now we see your real argument. You rely on decisions of the Jewish "Church" that were made after Jesus died, a "Church" where all Christians were kicked out. You might think that you might be more interested in what Christians churches were using at the time, rather than Jews.

The idea that the decision of the Jews made after the death of Jesus meant that Jesus "sanctioned" a particular "book" as Scripture is a truly strange idea. BTW, did Jesus sanction the book of Philemon or Revelation?
=======================================

Folks are free to use whatever canon they wish. After all, many indicate that they not relying on the canon used within the Traditions of the Church. Individuals make their own decisions rather than relying on the Church.

I heartily agree with all your points. I would only qualify the last one you made below the ==== marks...

I believe the Biblical canon was fulfilled by Christ and closed at the end of the Apostolic era, which effectively eliminates all heretical books.

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[Incariol]

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD).

So?

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

Self-referencing standard, and so what?

1. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

So what? Neither does Song of Solomon, I'm betting.

These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church,

What is that?

and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

Who never actually listed a canon, making this pure guesswork.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here's why there are no direct quotes in scripture; iow, why they were excluded in the early church.

4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets.679

679 The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished. Malachi—the last of them—uttered his prophecies at the end of Artaxerxes’ or at the beginning of Darius’ reign. It was commonly held among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi the prophetical spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who followed them.
​

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This period from cArtaxerxes to cJesus is commonly known as the 400 years of silence from Malachi's prophecy of "elijah" to John the Baptist's conception/fulfillment.

There were other books written of course, but weren't considered inspired.

PS. 1 Macc 14 (iirc) confirms this belief that there weren't 'valid prophets' at the time of its writing.

PPS Before folks go on about using Jewish sources, weren't Peter or Paul, or gasp, Jesus, Jewish?

You can cite all your evidence, but you still have to do a number of steps in deductive reasoning (not a good way to do theology by the way) to come up with any group of Jews having a closed canon of Scripture before or during the time of Christ.

In fact there is no record of any group of Jews who thought anything resembling an "Old Testament canon" (a problematic concept prior to the Christian era) had been closed before 70 AD.

Dig some more, you won't find it.

Jesus came to "fulfill" the Scriptures. His life and work (including His acts in His Apostles) completed the Scriptures.

So keep digging. But realize a lot of others have dug before you. Its just not there. There was no canon of Scripture devised by believing Jews ever, until the beliving Jews known as Apostles finished it with their writings.

Before then, different lists of books held different degrees of authority in the eyes of different groups of Jews.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

because 66 divides evenly.

 

[PaladinValer]

There are actually many more reasons why the apocryphal books are not accepted as canonical by most protestant denominations. I only listed these four because I knew that is all that would be necessary to demonstrate that most people have no clue what is involved in determining canonicity.

But...the four are wrong...

 

[Standing Up]

because 66 divides evenly.

Have you seen how the 66 work out to the parts of the Menorah; that is, thy word is a lamp unto my feet?

 

[hedrick]

1) This issue is more important to Catholic apologists than to most Protestants. Calvin commented on the relevant D-C texts in the Institutes, although indicating doubt about their canonical status. Many Protestant Bibles included them. One interesting comment in the Wikipedia article about the Lutheran canon notes that in this case the final decision was made more by popular opinion than by Protestant theologians.

2) In my view, the actual reason for the change is that the Reformation was largely (i.e. not just on this issue) a result of the Renaissance principle of "ad fontes", i.e. "back to the sources." There were many well-justified concerned about the current Latin Bibles. The Reformers quite reasonably wanted to go back to the original languages. This meant the Hebrew for the OT. Since this books weren't in the Hebrew canon, they became dubious. Whether there were Hebrew originals, and whether Hebrew was discovered later for a couple of them is kind of irrelevant to the 16th Cent decision. The only real alternatives they had were the LXX and the Hebrew. Given their principles, using the Hebrew made sense.

Current Catholic practice seems to be a hybrid between the two 16th Cent canons. They use the LXX list of books, but where Hebrew texts are available, they tend to follow the Hebrew.

The presence in the Dead Sea scrolls is irrelevant. Those included many books not considered canonical by any of us. Similarly, Vaticanus, etc, were translations of the LXX, so naturally they had them. These books are clearly ancient. That's not disputed. But they weren't part of the Hebrew canon in the 16th Cent. The Reformers would not have had the time, expertise, or interest in doing a book by book reconsideration of what a Christian Hebrew canon should look like. They simply picked between the two canons available in the West.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>In my view, the actual reason for the change is that the Reformation was largely (i.e. not just on this issue) a result of the Renaissance principle of "ad fontes", i.e. "back to the sources." There were many well-justified concerned about the current Latin Bibles. The Reformers quite reasonably wanted to go back to the original languages. This meant the Hebrew for the OT. Since this books weren't in the Hebrew canon, they became dubious. Whether there were Hebrew originals, and whether Hebrew was discovered later for a couple of them is kind of irrelevant to the 16th Cent decision. The only real alternatives they had were the LXX and the Hebrew. Given their principles, using the Hebrew made sense.<snip>

And that was quite an innovation when one considers NO church before the 16th century used the Hebrew canon as the standard for the Church's O.T. Scriptures.

 

[Noxot]

I wonder if I am the only one who believes that the deuterocanon is equal to the protocanon? (well, the Gospels are number 1 )

I think it is very weird to say that we can not base doctrine off the deuterocanon but that they are good to read. if they are good to read then why would it not make good doctrine? especially when a book says that all things in it are true i.e. 1 enoch and the shepherd of hermas. if they claim that, then they need to be discarded as pretending to be from God, or embraced fully and held in great esteem.

 

[MrPolo]

Also known by protestants as simply the "Apocrypha" I have come to realize that through the disuse of these books, some fairly "core" teachings such as "Intercession of Saints" and "prayers for the Dead" are missing, now I was hoping I could see a discussion on WHY it was felt appropriate to take these books from the bible?

It is possible that Martin Luther became more averse to the DC books as they were used against him in doctrinal debate. In 1519, he debated Johann Eck. During the debate, Eck made a defense of Catholic teaching on Purgatory and cited 2 Maccabees. Luther rejected the citation by denying the Scriptural quality of 2 Maccabees. Earlier in Luther's life at that point, he had cited Tobit and Sirach as Scripture. You can read about this in Gary Michuta's book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. And some of the text in question was discussed the other day at CAF here. So Luther may have had a doctrinal motive to ultimately reduce the DC books to non-inspired apocrypha.

The Michuta book might answer all you need. It is full of raw source material as to how the early Church viewed the books up to the time they were plucked even out of an apocryphal section and no longer in today's Protestant Bibles at all.

Another article you might want to check out is 5 Myths about 7 Books. In that article, Mark Shea addresses the claimed "reasons" that the DC books are not Scriptural and points out the fatal flaw in each claim. This includes that a book "must be written in Hebrew!!" (And if I may say, the must-be-Hebrew claim is specious on its face considering that after Alexander the Great conquered the area in the late 4th century B.C. there were an abundance of Greek speaking Jews---not to mention the fact that the NT writers cited the Greek Septuagint OT frequently instead of the Hebrew OT, so not even the Apostles thought a text had to be in Hebrew.)

 

[MrPolo]

The Reformers would not have had the time, expertise, or interest in doing a book by book reconsideration of what a Christian Hebrew canon should look like.

So why don't modern Protestants who reject the DC's on the basis that the originals weren't in Hebrew change their minds now that Hebrew texts of the DC's were discovered in the 20th century?

 

[sunlover1]

I wonder if I am the only one who believes that the deuterocanon is equal to the protocanon? (well, the Gospels are number 1 )

I think it is very weird to say that we can not base doctrine off the deuterocanon but that they are good to read. if they are good to read then why would it not make good doctrine?

Do you believe that everything that is good to read must necessarily be
God inspired? or do you believe that we should only call those things that
are God inspired, "good to read"?
God is able to speak to me through very many books, but His Scripture
is different in that it's alive and powerful...

 

[cobweb]

Do you believe that everything that is good to read must necessarily be
God inspired? or do you believe that we should only call those things that
are God inspired, "good to read"?
God is able to speak to me through very many books, but His Scripture
is different in that it's alive and powerful...

The difference is these aren't just any old books. They were considered Scripture for over 1000 years until it was decided by some that they should be cut out of the Bible.

 

[Rose_bud]

I wonder if I am the only one who believes that the deuterocanon is equal to the protocanon? (well, the Gospels are number 1 )

IMO the Gospel of John should be first in the NT...it just reads better that way..... like the OT Genesis...

 

[SummaScriptura]

I wonder if I am the only one who believes that the deuterocanon is equal to the protocanon? (well, the Gospels are number 1 )

I think it is very weird to say that we can not base doctrine off the deuterocanon but that they are good to read. if they are good to read then why would it not make good doctrine? especially when a book says that all things in it are true i.e. 1 enoch and the shepherd of hermas. if they claim that, then they need to be discarded as pretending to be from God, or embraced fully and held in great esteem.

I agree with you.

It is suspect to say, they should be included but not relied upon.

However, genre considerations in regards to those books exegetical use would tend to place most of them in a status where they will not be used for doctrine.

For instance, no on currently uses narrative portions of the Bible nor Wisdom literature to establish doctrine.

 

[cobweb]

For instance, no on currently uses narrative portions of the Bible nor Wisdom literature to establish doctrine.

I see your point and agree... but there are some who do use narrative portions and wisdom literature for doctrinal purposes. I've run across a few online.

 

[sunlover1]

The difference is these aren't just any old books. They were considered Scripture for over 1000 years until it was decided by some that they should be cut out of the Bible.

Not according to the Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies

For the Catholics these 15 books were added to the Old Testament canon at
the Counsel of Rome, 382 AD. Catholics refer to the Pseudepigrapha as the
Apocrypha.