A P O C R Y P H A : Included in every Holy Bible from the 4th century AD to the 19th Century AD

[Josiah]

Note-reiterated: This subject is about certain traditional books that Christians have used for centuries, having been removed completely and for a good long while as there was no printing of them under any circumstance!
This is NOT necessarily about the canon of books, just about biblical history and tradition.

I know of no one here who desires anything to be "ripped out" of anything. Certainly not the people you've been arguing with and accusing.

No one I know of denies that there are books and writings that some Christians used - even a lot - but are mostly forgotten in Protestant circles (and I'd add Catholic.... in my Catholic years, I didn't hear even one sermon on them, even one study of them, even one reference to anything in them - it wasn't until I became LUTHERAN that I was encouraged to read and study them).


And again, IF... IF.... you had been saying (endlessly!) "There are some writings that many Christians used (and sometimes still use) that once were often included in Bibles but most Protestants don't read or use them." Well, I don't think anyone here would have disagreed with that. IF.... IF.... you had said, "And these books can be quite helpful and should be read" again, I can't think of a single person known to me that would disagree.

BUT... BUT... what we got (endlessly!!!) was post after post after post.....thread after thread.... about Jewish conspiracies, claims that some (mysterious) corpus of books were "PUT IN" the Bible by some mysterious, unnamed authoritative Ruling Body of all Christianity and that all ECF and all Christians had exactly the same Bibles with exactly the same material in them.... then some mysterious (never named) person "RIPPED OUT" some (never named) of "them." Claims that if someone used a book, it therefore must have been in everyone's Bible and been PUT IN by some authoritative ruling body... if it was originally written in Hebrew, it's gotta be in all Bibles... God inspired the LXX (no notation of which) and it's the Bible for Gentiles... and on and on and on and on and on. NONE of it remotely supported as true (rarely even an attempt to do so).

He agrees, yep, Luther did not want the books removed, the Protestants didn't want them removed, Anti-Catholic Bible Societies had them removed even after years of protest FROM PROTESTANTS!

Then your "beef" is with anti-Catholicism (and nearly everyone here detests that) and with one or two "Bible societies" nearly 200 years ago. NOT with Protestantism. NOT with Lutheranism. NOT with Anglicanism. NOT with 99% of publishing houses, Bible societies, book stores. NOT with anyone here. It doesn't remotely substantiate all your claimed about Christianity PUTTING IN "them" or Protestants "RIPPING OUT" some. It means one or two publishing houses FREELY CHOSE to publish a shorter tome..... no law forced them, no denomination forced them. AND one could still buy, own and use a Bible that contained "Them" (you never were clear on what "them" is). The American Bible Society is involved in MANY different tomes with BIBLE on the cover - some with just the NT (just those 27 books), some with the Catholic "set" of books, some with the Anglican set of books. NO ONE HAS EVER - EVER - forbidden anyone from reading "them" and for the past 500 years, buying any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover.

I have my reasons for defending these books and it has a lot to do with the amount of evils spoken against them, my last church had a 66 book bible and they basically said that all Catholics will go to hell.. that's why I left.

Then your "beef" is with anti-Catholism.... and doesn't prove all your Jewish Conspiracy claims, all your Christianity Put IN claims, all your Protestants RIPPED OUT claims... God gave Gentiles the LXX claims.... you know, the content of the hundreds of posts you've published here.

I'm glad you left your anti-Catholic "Evangelical" church. Good for you! I have a LOT of issues with modern American "Evangelicalism." But then your "beef" is with that congregation - and not us, not Christianity, not Protestantism, not even what one or two societies did two centuries ago. And of course, that doesn't substantiate a thing you've said and claimed. Nope. Not one.



ANDREW - Here's been my consistent position for nearly 7 years here: There are some books IN ADDITION TO THE 66 that have played a role in Christianity - used, quoted, often seem as helpful, informational, inspirational. There has never been agreement on the exact list of these (indeed, there are MANY Bibles among Christians even today). Their STATUS has been questioned - but most seeing them as non-canonical (not to be used canonically - to source and norm dogma), some as Deuterocanonical (can be used to support dogma but not to form or norm it) but in reality generally not embraced as EQUAL to what today may be called "the 66." Not until AFTER the Reformation did some denominations come to view each's own unique set of them as equal (Roman Catholic specifically, although never officially). My position (and I'm one of a few you've been very debative with, angry with, accusatory with) is that the Apocrypha SHOULD be read - not as canonical but as helpful (and I rejoice that it seems Lutherans do this more than Catholics, in my personal experience). But then there are MANY writings I think are helpful... and welcome to be included in tomes with BIBLE on the cover (and some ARE in my Bible).

You've made a LOT of claims - bold and at times shocking - and all I've asked for is substantation. And never got it - just yet more claims and accusations.





.

 

[Albion]

Note-reiterated: This subject is about certain traditional books that Christians have used for centuries, having been removed completely and for a good long while as there was no printing of them under any circumstance!
This is NOT necessarily about the canon of books, just about biblical history and tradition.

Conspiracy theories can be fun, that's right. However, this one fails right out of the gate because it admits that its focus is simply on which people allegedly are responsible for removing books that were never canonical anyway from the Bible.

Obviously, it's important for anyone who thinks the Apocryphal books should be considered as having equal authority with the 66 books of most Bibles used by Christians to also ignore the fact that you cannot actually "remove" something from the canon if it was never IN the canon.

The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha: Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation – Christian Truth

christiantruth.com

 

[Andrew]

Conspiracy theories can be fun, that's right. However, this one fails right out of the gate because it admits that its focus is simply on which people allegedly are responsible for removing books that were never canonical anyway from the Bible.

Obviously, it's important for anyone who thinks the Apocryphal books should be considered as having equal authority with the 66 books of most Bibles used by Christians to also ignore the fact that you cannot actually "remove" something from the canon if it was never IN the canon.

The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha: Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation – Christian Truth

christiantruth.com

Conspiracy theory? lol it's a fact, you can go to their website, you can see them stamped in ypur bibles, they put out books about their history, I was researching the American Bible Society, Gary researched the Foreign Bible Society aka the Scottish Bible Society are the most hateful anti-Catholic organization besides the KKK.

I feel like you are just arguing just to argue, you disregard testimony of many influential church fathers, you ignore the letter Rufinus wrote against Jerome that points out everything and then some that me and Nathan argue, you probably never looked into the Bible Societies.. I highly recommend this book.

And for the last time.. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE CANON

 

[Albion]

Conspiracy theory? lol it's a fact, you can go to their website, you can see them stamped in ypur bibles, they put out books about their history, I was researching the American Bible Society, Gary researched the Foreign Bible Society aka the Scottish Bible Society are the most hateful anti-Catholic organization besides the KKK.

Well, some conspiracy theories get at real facts. But that misses the point of my comment, which was that whether or not the Apocrypha is canonical IS what all the rest of us have been arguing over for days now. And yes, it's that discussion that you chose to step back into with the video which, however, does not have as its primary interest the answer to the question of whether or not these books belong in the Bible.

And for the last time.. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE CANON

Here's what you wrote in the OP that contradicts what you are saying now--

The King James 1611 included them, the Geneva bible, ALL bibles included them for the majorty of Christendom... were they ignorant dummies and conspiracy theorists when they became concerned that the Jews were removing them when they obviously quote them in their Targums and in the dead sea scrolls? Jospehus included who soley spoke Greek and used the Greek Septuagint?

 

[Andrew]

Well, some conspiracy theories get at real facts. But that misses the point of my comment, which was that whether or not the Apocrypha is canonical IS what all the rest of us have been arguing over for days now. And yes, it's that discussion that you chose to step back into with the video which, however, does not have as its primary interest the answer to the question of whether or not these books belong in the Bible.

Here's what you wrote in the OP that contradicts what you are saying now--

How is that a contradiction?

The Scriptures in full were widely available by the time the churches were established, both in the Hebrew tongue and the dominant Greek language. THERE WAS NO CANON AT THAT TIME.

However, in Pauls letters he warns the church of NEW doctrines entering into the church preaching a different GOSPEL and likewise warned of Jewish Fables.
The Church Fathers heard his warning and these the church called Apocrypha, which were NOT allowed into the churches...

Rufinus on the tradition of Scripture for the church..
Note: Rufinus wrote this AFTER the canon lists were made. He openly disagrees with Jerome attributing the label "Apocrypha" to the Ecclesiastical Scriptures. These Ecclesiastical books were.. "for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken" ..thus all other writings outside the Ecclesiastical books are Apocrypha which are not from the "fountains of the Word of God" as he explains in his letter.

"Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Pete, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John.
These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith

But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not "Canonical" but "Ecclesiastical:" that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. All of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.

The other writings they have named "Apocrypha." These they would not have read in the Churches.

These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken"

 

[MoreCoffee]

Conspiracy theories can be fun, that's right. However, this one fails right out of the gate because it admits that its focus is simply on which people allegedly are responsible for removing books that were never canonical anyway from the Bible.

Is this thread about which books are canonical in Protestant circles?

 

[Albion]

That is simply a pile of incoherent claims ABOUT the status of the books we have been discussing, leading to nothing in particular.

Some of what you said is true but agrees with what the rest of us here have explained in opposition to your own stances. Meanwhile, some of what your post contains is true but also irrelevant, so far as this discussion is concerned.

And then some of it is just uninformed, like the claim that something is "tradition" and authoritative just because SOME people in the past agreed to parts of the material while others disagreed. And, once again, none of it meets the test of Holy Tradition: a belief that has continuity from the beginning of the church forward, and has been held to be true throughout the whole of the church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

meets the test of Holy Tradition: a belief that has continuity from the beginning of the church forward, and has been held to be true throughout the whole of the church.

Catholic and Orthodox Churches both receive these books as canonical:
Tobit, Judith, parts of Esther, 1& 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, parts of Daniel.
Protestants reject these as non-canonical. Protestant rejection runs deep enough to exclude these books and parts of books from their printed bibles. A 66 book bible is not received throughout the whole of the church and a 66 book bible does not have continuity from the beginning of the church forward. The earliest manuscripts in Greek that have preserved the books scripture are not 66 book bibles. Nor are the earliest versions from antiquity that have survived until today 66 book bibles.

 

[Lanman87]

In the Bull of Union with the Copts it iswritten:

I've been away for a few days and am just now catching up.

In response to this I'll a quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus. 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.


The fact is, there was never a consensus on the status of the deuterocanonical books. Some considered them to be part of the Canon and some did not. That was true in the early church, continued throughout the middle-ages and continues today.

You can say the reformers did not accept them as part of the canon and that is true. It is also true that prior to Trent, many in the Catholic church did not accept them as canon.

If you want to get mad that American Evangelicals removed the printed text of the Deutero books from their copies of the Bible then you have a point. If you want to say that American Evangelicals removed them from Scripture then it is a bit more fuzzy. For something to be removed it has to be part. Up until Trent there where only local councils that included them as scripture and many prominent Catholics didn't hold them as scripture. The Catholic church didn't truly declare them as "Scripture" until Trent, at which point the reformation was well under way. The Reformers held the minority Catholic postion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you want to get mad that American Evangelicals removed the printed text of the Deutero books from their copies of the Bible then you have a point.

Protestants can do whatever they like with the 66 books that they acknowledge and the others that they call apocryphal. That is a matter for them. Catholics have a 73 book canon of scripture that is well defined and has roots back to early Christian times. In the Catholic church debate and disagreement is permissible until a final statement with full Church authority is given on whatever matter is debated. Once the Church decided on the matter of the canon of scripture the debating ceased to be relevant.

The council of Florence gave a canon for scripture that was ratified by the council of Trent in a decision that closed further debate on what was canonical scripture. The ancient Church had canon lists that included the 73 books recognised as canonical scripture today. And the manuscripts used in the ancient Church included all of the 73 books received as canonical today.

What more needs to be stated? History has no 66 book bibles until after the Protestant revolt of the early 16th century AD.

 

[Lanman87]

In the Catholic church debate and disagreement is permissible until a final statement with full Church authority is given on whatever matter is debated.

That is exactly my point. Many Catholics act like there was never any debate or disagreement on the Deutero books. They act like they have always been accepted by all Catholics everywhere as part of the Canon. That is simply not true. Even as late as Trent there were high ranking Catholics who held Luther's positions.

The early protestants held a position on the Duetero books that was perfectly acceptable to hold as a Catholic, until Trent. Which finalized the debate for Catholics. But held no authority for Protestants, who continued to hold the positions that the books were good for devotion/history but were not to be considered part of the God Breathed inerrant scripture. And therefore shouldn't be used to establish or prove doctrinal truth.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The early protestants held a position on the Duetero books that was perfectly acceptable to hold as a Catholic, until Trent.

That isn't quite right. questioning the use of the deuterocanon for teaching doctrine was debated but inclusion in the bible was the norm. Catholic bibles both before and after the Protestant revolt contained 73 books. Interestingly Protestant bibles also contained more than 66 books after the protestant revolt up until relatively recent times.

 

[Albion]

That isn't quite right. questioning the use of the deuterocanon for teaching doctrine was debated but inclusion in the bible was the norm. Catholic bibles both before and after the Protestant revolt contained 73 books. Interestingly Protestant bibles also contained more than 66 books after the protestant revolt up until relatively recent times.

None of that is actually true, however.

But I acknowledge that almost every sentence is a half-truth, if that's any better.

 

[Josiah]

questioning the use of the deuterocanon for teaching doctrine was debated

Correct.

The view of Luther and the Anglican Church was exactly that: WHATEVER is considered to be "deuterocanonical" or "apocrypha" (and there has never been ecumenical agreement on that list) is not fully canonical - NOT supported as useful to source and norm doctrine. Good and helpful to read! Informational and inspirational! Certainly can be included in lectionaries and among with "the 66" in tomes labeled "BIBLE" Absolutely!!!! but NOT canonical. That was pretty much the universal view.

Yes, Luther's personal view (never officially adopted by Lutheranism) and the official view of the Church of England (and now Anglican Communion) in Article 6 of the 39 Articles is that whatever "them" is numerated, they are NOT canonical (to be used to source and norm doctrine). That is the traditional view of them - including in Catholicism prior to its current understanding of its own denominational meeting at Trent in the mid 16th Century; that one denomination now DOES consider it's own unique set of "them" to be fully canonical but that was not the situation for over 1500 years, not the understanding in the time of the Reformation, at least denominationally (no doubt some individuals held to that). Luther's own view and the official view of Anglicanism is simply the traditional one.

Catholic bibles both before and after the Protestant revolt contained 73 books. Interestingly Protestant bibles also contained more than 66 books after the protestant revolt up until relatively recent times.

Because no Protestant denomination known to me (or ever mentioned here) forbids folks to read from "them" or publishing houses from including "them" in tomes called "BIBLE" or from book stores selling such tomes.

Interestingly, those Protestant tomes you mention all had MORE books in them than your 73. The Post-Trent Catholic tome had/has fewer books in it than any Eastern Orthodox tome, fewer than Luther's, fewer than the Church of England's.




But to the point: NO denomination has officially forbidden people, societies, publishers or book stores from reading or using "them" (whatever "them" is numerated) or printing them or selling them. "They" have always been available to read and use, they have often been included in Protestant Bibles and Protestant lectionaries - not necessarily as fully canonical but certainly as helpful and useful. Our two friends certainly seem very angry that THEY were not personally invited to use them by their own ministers - and that may be true, and their anger is understandable - but that anger should be leveled at their own ministers in their parishes, not at Christianity or Protestantism or the good people here. And it certainly does not, by any means, verify all their Jewish Conspiracy theories, the "Christianity PUT IT and Protestants RIPPED OUT" claims, God inspired the LXX claims, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. that have supersaturated SO many threads and posts by them here.

The very fact that our two friends HAVE read them disproves their rant: there is no prohibition. True, "they" may not be in the same tome as "the 66" but they are very available with NO prohibition from reading or using or appreciating them. As they themselves prove. They themselves disprove their own rant.



A blessed Easter season to all...


Josiah



.

 

[Lanman87]

hat isn't quite right. questioning the use of the deuterocanon for teaching doctrine was debated but inclusion in the bible was the norm.

That is why I said earlier

If you want to get mad that American Evangelicals removed the printed text of the Deutero books from their copies of the Bible then you have a point. If you want to say that American Evangelicals removed them from Scripture then it is a bit more fuzzy.

When we non-Catholic say "Bible" what we mean is Biblical Canon. That is, the inspired inerrant God Breathed Scripture.

To me, saying that they removed the Deutero books from the Bible is like saying they removed maps, indexes, commentaries, historic informaton, devotion material,and footnotes from the Bible. All of those things make the reading of the Bible more enjoyable, make it easier to understand, and may provide Spiritual guidance and encouragement. But removing them from the Bible doesn't make the Bible (without those things) any less of a Bible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

When we non-Catholic say "Bible" what we mean is Biblical Canon. That is, the inspired inerrant God Breathed Scripture.

Catholics mean the 73 canonical books that constitute the holy scriptures used in the Catholic Church.

 

[Andrew]

Correct.

The view of Luther and the Anglican Church was exactly that: WHATEVER is considered to be "deuterocanonical" or "apocrypha" (and there has never been ecumenical agreement on that list) is not fully canonical - NOT supported as useful to source and norm doctrine. Good and helpful to read! Informational and inspirational! Certainly can be included in lectionaries and among with "the 66" in tomes labeled "BIBLE" Absolutely!!!! but NOT canonical. That was pretty much the universal view.

Yes, Luther's personal view (never officially adopted by Lutheranism) and the official view of the Church of England (and now Anglican Communion) in Article 6 of the 39 Articles is that whatever "them" is numerated, they are NOT canonical (to be used to source and norm doctrine). That is the traditional view of them - including in Catholicism prior to its current understanding of its own denominational meeting at Trent in the mid 16th Century; that one denomination now DOES consider it's own unique set of "them" to be fully canonical but that was not the situation for over 1500 years, not the understanding in the time of the Reformation, at least denominationally (no doubt some individuals held to that). Luther's own view and the official view of Anglicanism is simply the traditional one.





Because no Protestant denomination known to me (or ever mentioned here) forbids folks to read from "them" or publishing houses from including "them" in tomes called "BIBLE" or from book stores selling such tomes.

Interestingly, those Protestant tomes you mention all had MORE books in them than your 73. The Post-Trent Catholic tome had/has fewer books in it than any Eastern Orthodox tome, fewer than Luther's, fewer than the Church of England's.




But to the point: NO denomination has officially forbidden people, societies, publishers or book stores from reading or using "them" (whatever "them" is numerated) or printing them or selling them. "They" have always been available to read and use, they have often been included in Protestant Bibles and Protestant lectionaries - not necessarily as fully canonical but certainly as helpful and useful. Our two friends certainly seem very angry that THEY were not personally invited to use them by their own ministers - and that may be true, and their anger is understandable - but that anger should be leveled at their own ministers in their parishes, not at Christianity or Protestantism or the good people here. And it certainly does not, by any means, verify all their Jewish Conspiracy theories, the "Christianity PUT IT and Protestants RIPPED OUT" claims, God inspired the LXX claims, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. that have supersaturated SO many threads and posts by them here.

The very fact that our two friends HAVE read them disproves their rant: there is no prohibition. True, "they" may not be in the same tome as "the 66" but they are very available with NO prohibition from reading or using or appreciating them. As they themselves prove. They themselves disprove their own rant.



A blessed Easter season to all...


Josiah



.

Luther used apocrypha/deuterocanon books with canonical books in his resolutions to his 95 theses

Anyway. Yes Biblical tradition on both sides had the apocrypha section and yes the early churches used them also, they belong in the bible, they were in the first Bible. They would still be in all Bibles if it weren't for the Anti-Catholics meddling with the Holy Church's tradition of having a "Complete Bible" as stated by Luther himself.

 

[MoreCoffee]

They would still be in all Bibles

I much prefer a 73 book bible over a 66 book one.
But I do own several 66 book bibles, things like the NKJV and NIV, both of which are not available with a full 73 book canon.
But if Protestants want 66 book bibles that's fine with me. At least they have some of the bible to read and that can still teach them to live a godly life.

 

[Josiah]

Luther used apocrypha/deuterocanon books with canonical books in his resolutions to his 95 theses

Yes. USED. He didn't support any of your Jewish Conspiracy claims, he didn't support all your "Christianity put in" claims and "Protestants ripped out" claims, he didn't support your God gave gentiles the LXX claims, he didn't support the "everyone had the same Bible until the American Bible Society changed that" claims. Luther USED lots of things, indeed in his writings he OFTEN used LOTS of material from the Early Church Fathers... but USING is not the same as declaring that such has just gotta therefore be inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and there just hasta be a grand international law mandating that such must be included in any tome with the word "BIBLE" found on the cover or else.


There is no law, no denominational mandate, nothing that says you can't USE "them" - or anything else for that matter.

There is no law, no denominational mandate, nothing that mandates or forbids what publishing houses may or may not put in or not put in any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover.

No singular person, publishing house, society or denomination is the Ruling Body of all Christianity on what is and is not to be allowed to appear or forbidden to appear in Christian Bibles.

NO ONE and NOTHING kept you or Nathan from reading or using ANYTHING. The reality that you may have read and used "them" disproves your point. You CAN read and use them - because you have.

If your minister in your parish wants you to be ignorant of things so that you won't understand a verse in the Book of Hebrews and so told you not to read something, then your anger is at THAT MINISTER. And your taking his/her advice. THAT'S the reason you were late to the party. Your "beef" is not with Christianity or Protestantism.... not with something the American Bible Society (one singular Bible society) did some TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO that does not impact you.... not with the Jews or Luther. It's with this unnamed person who wanted you to be ignorant.



Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141





.

 

[Lanman87]

Catholics mean the 73 canonical books that constitute the holy scriptures used in the Catholic Church.

I understand that, But to say that Protestants removed those books from the "Canon" of Holy Scriptures or that Catholics added those books to the Canon are both not the entire story.

Throughout church history there were two threads (as the New Catholic Encyclopedia put it) concerning those books. Two rival "traditions" if you will. During all the dust up during the reformation the Catholic church affirmed one tradition and the Protestants affirmed the other tradition.

I'm just as quick to tell protestants that Catholics didn't add "those books" to the Bible as I am to tell Catholics that Protestants didn't remove "those books" from the Bible.

And it is not even as simple as that. Some prominent Theologians in the Middles ages accepts some of the Deutero books as part of the Canon and rejected others.

Even perhaps the greatest Pope in History, Gregory the Great, said that 1 Maccabees is not part of the Canon in his commentaries on the Book of Morals exposition on the Book of Job (which he published after becoming Pope). Book 19, Chapter 34

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed [1 Macc. 6, 46]…

Pope Gregory the Great gives the early Reformers view of 1 Maccabees. It is not Canonical, but at the same time is for edifying the church. Obviously, we don't know his view on the other disputed books. But it does show that the Catholic church didn't always hold 1 Macc as being a Canonical work.