Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: Buggman; annalex; Kolokotronis; kosta50
Annalex wrote: They read the Deuterocanon. So should we.

Buggman responded: They did not speak of the Apocrypha with the terms that indicated that they thought it Scripture, nor did they build doctrine upon them. Neither should we.

I have not been following this conversation, but I happen to come upon Buggman's response and I must disagree with him. The Church Fathers over and over spoke of the DEUTEROCANNONICALS (Apocrypha is the term given to "hidden" writings, not writings that came into the cannon after some discussion, such as 2 Peter or Wisdom) as being Scriptures. They often discussed a theological point, proofing it with a Protocannonical work and IN THE SAME SENTENCE using a Dueterocannonical work. Thus, in context, they considered that the Deut writing had the exact SAME force as the Proto work of Scriptures.

For example, consider this...

"What, then, again says the prophet? 'The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,'[Ps. 22:17,118:12] and 'upon my garment they cast lots'[Ps. 22:19]. Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves[Isa. 3:9,] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us'[Wisdom 2:12]. And Moses also says to them, 'Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware tto give to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey'[Ex. 33:1, Lev. 20:24]." Epistle of Barnabas, 6 (A.D. 74).

As any unbiased individual can see, the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas considered the Book of Wisdom to be Scriptural, using a verse from it with the same force in the same sentence as a verse from Isaiah and surrounded by other Scriptures from the Protocanonical books. From such writings, we can determine that many other Fathers considered other books as Scriptures.

Nearly a year ago, some other gentleman on this forum challenged me to prove this idea that the Deuterocanonicals were Scriptures as determined by the Church Fathers. As such, I did some extensive research and found the following. This is a transcript with what I have posted here before...

OT Deuterocanonicals explicitly accepted as Scripture

Epistle of Barnabas Wisdom

Clement of Rome Wisdom

Didache Sirach

Polycarp Tobit

Melito of Sardes gives a list including Daniel and Wisdom, possibly Baruch

Irenaeus Daniel (*see below) and Baruch

Tertullian Wisdom, Daniel, and Baruch

Muratorian Fragment gives a list including Wisdom in the NT

Clement of Alexandria Sirach, Baruch, Tobit and Wisdom

Hippolytus Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch and Daniel

Origen Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach

Cyprian Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach

Dionysius the Great Wisdom, Sirach

Lactanius Sirach

Alexander of Alexandria Sirach

Aphraates the Persian Sage Maccabees and Sirach

Cyril of Jerusalem includes a “canon” list with 2nd Esdras Daniel and Baruch. He later calls Wisdom Scripture, indicating that canon does not equal Scripture, as we define it. Canon means those books to be proclaimed at Mass.

Athanasius Baruch, Daniel, Sirach and Tobit he calls Scripture explicitly. He also lists Wisdom, Judith, Tobit as among those to be read for new converts. Note Tobit is on both lists, so he, like Cyril, does not equate canon with Scripture as we do today. The second list are not to be proclaimed during the Liturgy.

Basil Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Sirach

Hilary of Poitiers Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, and Wisdom. He also lists Tobit and Judith in his list of Scripture.

Gregory of Nazianzen Daniel, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith

Gregory of Nyssa Wisdom, Daniel

Ambrose Wisdom, Judith, Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, Tobit and Sirach

Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382). All Deuterocanonicals of Roman Catholic Church included.

John Chrysostom Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and Daniel

Jerome lists 1st Maccabees and later Sirach (called “Parables” in Hebrew form) as Scripture and discounts the other Deuterocanonicals SOLELY on the grounds that there are no Hebrew versions of them (this is why he includes 1st Maccabees and later Sirach). He also equates Baruch with Scripture right along with Ezekiel.

Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

* (all references to Daniel refer to the longer Septuagint, not Hebrew version.)

(This list is not found on the internet, but a result of my own reading and research - I give permission for others to copy and use this as they see fit.)

I stop at 400 AD. The above shows that there was a developing idea of these books and whether they were inspired works of God. As time continues, we see more of the Deuterocanonicals were declared as inspired Scripture, right alongside other Protocanonicals. A Father’s failure to mention a book as Scripture is not evidence of his exclusion. Also, there is NO evidence to suggest, besides Jerome, that ANY Father thought that the Deuterocanonicals were NOT inspired or Scripture. I have not found one instance of this negative being mentioned explicitly. With the evidence, it becomes clear that we can safely conclude that the Catholic Church correctly decided to incorporate the Deuterocanonicals into the Bible and declare all books thus as Scripture and inspired by God. We have no reason to believe that they were poorly informed or purposely mislead the future Church on the subject of what was Scripture. It becomes apparent that continuing to hold to this idea shows a philosophy without justification.

In the end, Buggman, those who refuse to accept the Old Testament Deuts are going to have to explain why they accept the NEW Testament Deuts, such as James, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter in their Scriptures, as THEY TOO were debated initially. Why the NT but not the OT Deuts??? Can anyone deny that there are theological reasons for why Luther cast them out of the Bible?


7,414 posted on 01/24/2007 4:41:14 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7282 | View Replies ]

To: jo kus; Buggman; Kolokotronis; kosta50

Excellent work. I put a reference to your post and The_Reader_David's on my profile for future reference.

I did not index this thread in the same way as the Erasmus, because we see nothing new here. But keep it up, and I will start indexing.

7,424 posted on 01/24/2007 10:46:39 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7414 | View Replies ]

To: jo kus

Thank you jo for your post. We miss you.

7,475 posted on 01/25/2007 9:24:02 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7414 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson