"extra-canonical books"


#1

Jesus and his apostles quoted many times from the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible. Why do non-Catholics not have these books in their bibles?


#2

"During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.
As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants. "

catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon


#3

. . . for a different perspective:

"The Jewish canon seems not to have been closed [at the time of Christ], and Christians relied on the decidedly larger but somewhat uncertain canon of the LXX [Septuagint]-- until the time of Jerome when at which time many felt that the Jewish canon was more worthy of attention. One is left with a canon that remained uncertain until a very late period consisting of two parts. A list of books which all were certain about and a list of several more that had an uncertain status. Some regarded the deuteros as being merely apocryphal or non-canonical (following Jerome's preface), but others regarded as Scripture (following Augustine or Origen) or perhaps as quasi-Scripture. For this reason I find the claim that Protestants removed books from Scripture to be roughly as exaggerated as the claim that Catholics added the books at the Council of Trent. The truth, it seems, was that an ambiguity truly existed which was very difficult to resolve. "

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm


#4

To be fair the book of Enoch is quoted in the NT too but we don't regard it as holy scripture but the Ethiopian Orthodox Church regards it as such.


#5

All I know is Catholics have the same books Jesus used and every other person calling themselves a Christian for 1500 years.


#6

[quote="KP3243, post:5, topic:294418"]
All I know is Catholics have the same books Jesus used and every other person calling themselves a Christian for 1500 years.

[/quote]

Except that in the East, "Christians" had MORE books that what we Catholics did, and they still do.


#7

So under whose direct authority did anyone have to remove books from the Bible? Is it correct that under the authority of God the Catholic Church put the Bible together?


#8

[quote="eo_chibears, post:7, topic:294418"]
So under whose direct authority did anyone have to remove books from the Bible? Is it correct that under the authority of God the Catholic Church put the Bible together?

[/quote]

That isn't quite how it worked.

With respect to the New Testament, pretty much everyone agrees.

With respect to the Old Testament, the idea was to adopt what the Jews considered "Scripture". The problem is that there was never any official "jewish canon" of scripture at the time of Christ and many of the teachers in the Jewish faith did not all agree on what was scripture and what was not. At the time of Christ, the Septuagint was in use, written in the dominant language of the time - Greek. Some of its books were originally written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic, some in Greek. That is probably (although not certainly) the "scripture" with which Christ was familiar. However unlike the Catholic Church which is blessed with the authority of Magisterium, with the Pope at its head, the Jewish faith had, and still has no such teaching authority, or head. At some point after the time of Christ, probably around the year 90 or so, it is surmised that "some" Jewish scholars met to try to agree on a cannon for their Tanahk (the Old Testament). At this point many Christian communities already existed and were using their own version of the Old Testament based on the Septuagint. These Jewish scholars agreed among themselves that only books originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (not Greek) and in existence no later than the time of Ezra would be considered "scripture". Not all Jews agreed, at least not initially, but eventually, that seems to have become the accepted version of the Jewish Old Testament. Interestingly, it now appears that some of the "Greek" written books which those Jews rejected were actually written in Hebrew and/or Aramiac, based on discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Christians didn't care. They had their own version, the Vulgate, at least up until the time of Luther, when he took a look at the Jewish canon, realized the Catholic canon was different, so he put the "lesser" books at the end with a comment. Eventually, they just stopped printing the books Luther considered "lesser" in Protestant Bibles.

At the Council of Trent, in the mid-1500s, the Church, in response to Luther, officially stated (defined) what books were part of the Catholic canon. However, well before that time, probably as early as about 400 A.D., the books defined at Trent were recognized by virtually all Christian Catholic communities as "the Bible". No one actually challenged it until Luther, which prompted the Council to act.

Of course in the East, the Christians of what is now the Orthodox church always had an even larger canon for the Old Testament and they continue to use it today.

By the way: NOTE TO MODS: this probably is in the wrong sub-forum and maybe should be moved to "Scripture".


#9

[quote="eo_chibears, post:1, topic:294418"]
Jesus and his apostles quoted many times from the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible. Why do non-Catholics not have these books in their bibles?

[/quote]

They did??


#10

[quote="Prosmith, post:9, topic:294418"]
They did??

[/quote]

Yes.


#11

[quote="eo_chibears, post:10, topic:294418"]
Yes.

[/quote]

I wasn't aware of that. I have yet to see where Jesus quoted from the apocrypha in the Gospels.


#12

[quote="Prosmith, post:11, topic:294418"]
I wasn't aware of that. I have yet to see where Jesus quoted from the apocrypha in the Gospels.

[/quote]

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=599778
post #8
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=113094
posts 6&7


#13

[quote="KP3243, post:5, topic:294418"]
All I know is Catholics have the same books Jesus used and every other person calling themselves a Christian for 1500 years.

[/quote]

It is doubful Jesus used the LXX as he was a Palestinian Jew....the LXX was used extensively by the Diaspora and many of the Diaspora had lost touch with Hebrew and Aramaic.

The writers of the NT used and quoted from the LXX is not disputed.


#14

[quote="Publisher, post:13, topic:294418"]
It is doubful Jesus used the LXX as he was a Palestinian Jew....the LXX was used extensively by the Diaspora and many of the Diaspora had lost touch with Hebrew and Aramaic.

The writers of the NT used and quoted from the LXX is not disputed.

[/quote]

So Jesus didn't use it, but those who walked with him or were his disciples did? :shrug:


#15

[quote="Publisher, post:13, topic:294418"]
It is doubful Jesus used the LXX as he was a Palestinian Jew....the LXX was used extensively by the Diaspora and many of the Diaspora had lost touch with Hebrew and Aramaic.

The writers of the NT used and quoted from the LXX is not disputed.

[/quote]

The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and was around approximately 300 years before Christ. The Massorah did not arrive on the scene until the 6th century. The Septuagint was the only testament around in Christ's time and was used even among Palestinian rabbis. As you have admitted, the Apostles and Evangelists used it also and quoted from it, mostly when they were speaking about the prophecies. To believe that Jesus, being who he was, did not use the Septuagint is really stretching reason, don't you think?


#16

[quote="SteveVH, post:15, topic:294418"]
The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and was around approximately 300 years before Christ. The Massorah did not arrive on the scene until the 6th century. The Septuagint was the only testament around in Christ's time and was used even among Palestinian rabbis. As you have admitted, the Apostles and Evangelists used it also and quoted from it, mostly when they were speaking about the prophecies. To believe that Jesus, being who he was, did not use the Septuagint is really stretching reason, don't you think?

[/quote]

No, not at all.....since we disagree that any of Jesus original apostles wrote any of the NT books....and they all were Greek speakers of the Diaspora, the LXX was in common use among the Greek speaking world. In Palestine the Aramaic and Hebrew texts were used....Jesus certainly was aware of the LXX...but it is doubful it was used in synagouge in Palestine....especially among the people Jesus ministerd to.

Jesus was not a 'superhuman' who knew every language and every fact....."he grew in stature and wisdom"..."he emptied himself and became a servant'....he was human, 100% human with all human limitations.....that is what makes the Incarnation so amazing...God emptied Himself and became man....one of us.

However, if you and your religious community believes differently...great....


#17

[quote="adf417, post:12, topic:294418"]
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=599778
post #8
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=113094
posts 6&7

[/quote]

I see similarities at best but no quotes.


#18

[quote="Prosmith, post:17, topic:294418"]
I see similarities at best but no quotes.

[/quote]

How do you suppose you will see exact quotes when we can’t even know exactly what words were used in any of the translations we use today?

Quick example from John 6:14:
“When the people saw him do this miraculous sign, they exclaimed, “Surely, he is the Prophet we have been expecting!” *NLV
*“Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
KJV

There are probably better examples but I hope you get the point…Similar but not exact…

Jesus and/or his disciples could have quoted exactly word for word but we may never know looking at our translations today right?

Peace!!!


#19

=SMOM;9620768]"During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

If it was for doctrinal reasons, why did Catholics such as Cardinal Cajetan say they were not part of the canon? I think to say that is simply doctrinal leaves out a whole lot of the reasons the deutero-canonical books were in dispute for centuries.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants. "

catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon

Its that varying degrees of recognition that Luther pointed to, in the same way he questioned the NT antilagomena. One also needs to define "rejected". Lutherans will not use the D-C's for doctrine, but we do use them, even liturgically, in our hymnody, etc.

Jon


#20

[quote="Publisher, post:16, topic:294418"]
No, not at all.....since we disagree that any of Jesus original apostles wrote any of the NT books....and they all were Greek speakers of the Diaspora, the LXX was in common use among the Greek speaking world. In Palestine the Aramaic and Hebrew texts were used....Jesus certainly was aware of the LXX...but it is doubful it was used in synagouge in Palestine....especially among the people Jesus ministerd to.

Jesus was not a 'superhuman' who knew every language and every fact....."he grew in stature and wisdom"..."he emptied himself and became a servant'....he was human, 100% human with all human limitations.....that is what makes the Incarnation so amazing...God emptied Himself and became man....one of us.

However, if you and your religious community believes differently...great....

[/quote]

From what manuscripts do you think the Septuagint was translated into Greek? They were Hebrew, and the Dead Sea Scrolls provide much evidence of this.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.