Canon

[Guest astralis]

Yes there is.  Martin Luther and his cohorts didn't like what the Apocryphal books had to say so he cut them.

BTW, there was no agreement as to what the "original Hebrew text" of the OT was.  We know what was in the Septuagint and 2/3 of the quotes in the NT from the OT are directly from the Septuagint version.  Protestant scholars readily admit this so there is universal agreement on this.

A Jewish believer 50 years before Christ didn't infallibly know which books belong in the Bible unless he had access to an infallible source.

In his day this would have been a prophet or an inquiry of the Lord via the high priest's Urim and Thummim. They needed an infallible source to know with certainty which books belonged in Scripture then, just as we do now.

The "original Hebrew text" is a myth and there was no standard until 90 A.D. (if you can really call it a standard but this is what most Protestants allude to) at the Council of Jamnia where the Jews decided what should constitute the Bible.  This is where they said the Apocryphal books weren't included but this wasn't binding on all Jews and many today still include the Apocryphal books as part of their inspired Canon (ie. Ethiopian Jews).  At this same council the Jews also said the writings in our NT are not inspired.

Certainly early Christians, as most Christians today do, never believed a Jewish council 60 years after the death of our Lord is binding on Christians.  It wasn't until Martin Luther where these Apocryphal books were cut from the Bible and make up the Bible that Protestants accepted the ruling of a Jewish council 60 years after the death of Jesus.

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

Racer, you claim that not one RC person has been able to show me where any of the Deuterocanonical texts are quoted in the NT.  First of all, why is this a rule?  What does it mean?  I don't see why you think it has to be in the NT (not that I'm saying it isn't) to authenticate the OT.  If this was the case then why do you recognize Ruth, Esther, Obadiah, Ezra, Nahum, Judges, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes and Canticles?  They are not quoted in the NT either.  Your rule doesn't make any sense.

Now Racer, let me be the first Catholic to show you that, yes, the deutorcanonicals (Apocrypha to you) are in the NT:

Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).

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

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

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

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

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

Now, how did the NT come along?  That's story is very closely related to the OT and the Apocrypha because the same councils who affirmed the NT and Protestants appeal to also affirmed the Apocrypha.  

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

[Chazn]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Astralis,

Some Questions:

1. Wouldn't you think that Jeremiah being thrown into a sewage pit qualified him as a recipient of the kind of torture outlined in your quote from Heb.11?

2. Wouldn't the death of Zechariah son of Berekiah (Alluded to in Mt.23:35) of II Chron. qualify under the same criterion established by Heb.11?  (By the way, I've always understood that Jesus' quote of Mt. 23:34-36 was His way of saying "You are responsible for the deaths of all the prophets from Gen. to II Chron. (Beginning to end, since II Chron. is the last book of the Jewish OT.)

3. Even with the Deuterocanonical books included, would II Chron. still have been the last book in the Jewish OT?

4. Could you refer to a doctrine or two that might be derived from a Deuterocanonical (interesting term! :-) ) book that would prove to be at variance with contemporary protestant theology?

Thanks for your input.

[Lanakila]

Chazn the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory has some support in the Apocrapha. Not sure of any other extras, but I am sure Munari and Astralis can come up with some.

[Guest astralis]

4. Could you refer to a doctrine or two that might be derived from a Deuterocanonical (interesting term! :-) ) book that would prove to be at variance with contemporary protestant theology?

Support for Prayers to Saints and Purgatory can strongly be found in the Deuterocanonical books among others.

[Guest Xan]

Support for purgatory prior to the Messiah's resurrection is found in the NT. There is even evidence Yeshua read the books of the Maccabees.  Because the books were not written by an authorized priest or prophet, in other words not considered to be infallible, I do not consider it scripture but it is good history.

[Guest racer]

Chazn,

As you can see, this is a very difficult topic with many opposing views.

[Guest racer]

Xan,

Support for purgatory prior to the Messiah's resurrection is found in the NT.  There is even evidence Yeshua read the books of the Maccabees.  Because the books were not written by an authorized priest or prophet, in other words not considered to be infallible, I do not consider it scripture but it is good history.

I find that very interesting.    Could you tell me where I might find this evidence in the NT?

[Guest racer]

astralis,

Really, it just so happens I have a RCC Study Bible, could you direct me as to where to look?  

[Guest racer]

astralis,

Yes there is.  Martin Luther and his cohorts didn't like what the Apocryphal books had to say so he cut them.

Well, since Martin Luther was much closer and better informed on the topic, I'm sure he knew what belonged and what didn't?  The best you and I have to go on are the writings of other long passed on people.

BTW, there was no agreement as to what the "original Hebrew text" of the OT was.

Upon what do you base this claim

.  We know what was in the Septuagint and 2/3 of the quotes in the NT from the OT are directly from the Septuagint version.  Protestant scholars readily admit this so there is universal agreement on this.

Would you give us some credible sources to prove this? :???:

A Jewish believer 50 years before Christ didn't infallibly know which books belong in the Bible unless he had access to an infallible source.

Well, unless I'm sadly mistaken and terribly off course, which many times I am, I think his "infallibly source" would have been God. :sarcasm:

In his day this would have been a prophet or an inquiry of the Lord via the high priest's Urim and Thummim. They needed an infallible source to know with certainty which books belonged in Scripture then, just as we do now.

Right, and are you suggesting that God did not guide them?

The "original Hebrew text" is a myth and there was no standard until 90 A.D. (if you can really call it a standard but this is what most Protestants allude to) at the Council of Jamnia where the Jews decided what should constitute the Bible.  This is where they said the Apocryphal books weren't included but this wasn't binding on all Jews and many today still include the Apocryphal books as part of their inspired Canon (ie. Ethiopian Jews).  At this same council the Jews also said the writings in our NT are not inspired.

Could you direct us to the source from which you obtained this informations?  

Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I.

             

Racer, you claim that not one RC person has been able to show me where any of the Deuterocanonical texts are quoted in the NT.  First of all, why is this a rule?

Well, when did I say it was a rule?  But, it clearly is a clue that Jesus didn't think much about the deuteros.

What does it mean?  I don't see why you think it has to be in the NT (not that I'm saying it isn't) to authenticate the OT.

I understand you dilemma.  If your RC your doctrines and dogmas are not required to be in Scripture.  However, the NT very explicitly and clearly authenticate the OT.  Once I figured that out, is when I placed my complete and total faith in the Word of God.

If this was the case then why do you recognize Ruth, Esther, Obadiah, Ezra, Nahum, Judges, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes and Canticles?  They are not quoted in the NT either.  Your rule doesn't make any sense.

Well, let me further expose my ignorance by asking what these people, etc . . . have to do with our discussion?  The Book of Enoch is not even considered a Deuterocanonical, yet he is referenced in the NT.  So, that's not my rule.  I just think it puts the authenticity and canonicity of the Deuteros in question.  Sorry.

[Guest astralis]

They are also books.