Hebrew Scriptures And Deuterocanonicals

Spero News ^ | 8/19/06 | Adrian

[bdeaner]

Jesus was the only Begotten Son of the Heavenly Father...Christ read the minds of those he encountered and said I have foretold you all things...

That's right! Of course. And that is EXACTLY why we would want to use the VERY SAME Scriptures that Christ used. And he used the SEPTUAGINT Old Testament, which contained the deuterocanonicals (so-called Apocrypha). The Protestant Bible is based on an anti-Christian council of Jews in 80 AD. The Catholics agree with you, which is why we used the deuterocanonicals from the Septuagint, the same Bible used by Jesus and his disciples.

[Just mythoughts]

That's right! Of course. And that is EXACTLY why we would want to use the VERY SAME Scriptures that Christ used. And he used the SEPTUAGINT Old Testament, which contained the deuterocanonicals (so-called Apocrypha). The Protestant Bible is based on an anti-Christian council of Jews in 80 AD. The Catholics agree with you, which is why we used the deuterocanonicals from the Septuagint, the same Bible used by Jesus and his disciples.

We have the words of Christ, could you specifically point to where he quoted the words of the 'so-called Apocrypha'. Now He made Moses and Elijah one and the same as the 'New Testament', by using them as what a transfigured body appears. He quoted Isaiah, King David in the Psalms while upon the cross, on and on it goes. Paul who was the most learned in the Hebrew language quotes all over the books of the so-called Old.

ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (examples): and they are written for our admonition, (warning) upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come.

So we are given the script as what happened to 'them' is in the process of being replayed... Guess the big mystery is who the 'them' are that are the object of the drama unfolding.

And even Christ Himself identified who the majority of 'them' are when He gave His disciples their first instruction. Matthew 10

[bdeaner]

We have the words of Christ, could you specifically point to where he quoted the words of the 'so-called Apocrypha'.

Already did. See post #13.

[bdeaner]

The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon

Absolutely false.

JND Kelly, whose book Early Christian Doctrine is standard in many Protestant seminaries, admits that the Deuterocanonicals were commonly accepted by the early church as scripture (pages 53-55). 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 Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

[Just mythoughts]

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

I will just take the first one. Where in Matthew 2:16 does it say anything about 'holy' innocents. As Herod attempted to but certainly was not allowed to accomplish the slaying of the only 'holy' innocent child he was after. Who penned this book Wis.?

[Just mythoughts]

Absolutely false. JND Kelly, whose book Early Christian Doctrine is standard in many Protestant seminaries, admits that the Deuterocanonicals were commonly accepted by the early church as scripture (pages 53-55). 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 Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

Why is the 'church' the object of worship instead of the Savior. And why is Mary used as having 'power' to intercede when no such thing ever happened before? And if it is the 'grace' thing then Noah came first in having found grace why not the same imagery given to him as is to Mary?

[bdeaner]

Why is the 'church' the object of worship instead of the Savior? And why is Mary used as having 'power' to intercede when no such thing ever happened before? And if it is the 'grace' thing then Noah came first in having found grace why not the same imagery given to him as is to Mary?

Well, first of all, you seem to be changing the topic. The topic on this thread is the deuterocanonicals and their rightful place in the canon. It's actually possible to be a Protestant and believe the deuterocanonicals are inspired--although likely it is a big step in the direction of Catholicism.

Second, I don't know if you mean to be offensive, but your question is frankly, offensive to Catholics. The implication of your first question, really, is that somehow, by virtue of being Catholic, we worship the Church rather than Jesus Christ. Well, that's simply incorrect. No one in the Catholic Church worships the Church. We worship Jesus Christ. And that's why we accept the authority of the Church, because this was an authority that Christ Himself gave to the Church through St. Peter and His Disciples. The Lord made St. Peter the rock upon which He would build His Church, and by following the teachings of the Church, we thereby follow Chirst. The Church is not the object of worship.

If your father, on his deathbed, gave you a rock and said, "Whenever you look at this rock, you will think of me." Someone might look at you one day while you are gazing at the rock, and think, "Wow, that person is out of his cottom-pickin mind. He's in love with that rock." Well, no, you love your Dad, and you look upon the rock because that's what your Dad told you to do and you do it out of love. Analogously, the Church is the rock, and Jesus is the Dad in this parable. Not so hard to understand, is it?

Secondly, on the question of Mary. That's a question that would require an entire thread by itself, and I can't do it justice here. But the short version is this: Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ. That gives her a special relationship to the Lord, because she bore Him in her womb and raised Him as her child. No one has could have done that, because she was the one and only person chosen and blessed by the Lord for that purpose.

Now, I am sure, if you are a Christian, you have asked friends to pray for you. Well, it's possible to do that with Mary and the Saints. Just like you ask a friend to pray for you, you can aks Mary and the Saints to pray for you. But in the case of Mary, her intercession is very powerful, because she is the Lord's Mother.

You know, if you wanted the autograph of a big rock star, you'd be more likely to get it if you knew the mother of the rock star. That's the same basic idea. Jesus is like the rock start, and Mary is His Mother. We pray directly to Jesus, yes, but just like we ask others to pray for us, we can ask Mary to intercede -- which magnifies the power of the petition. That's what we believe, in short--although, keep in mind, this is an oversimplification for expediency sake.

I'm not sure about your third question. Perhaps you can clarify.

[bdeaner]

Matthew 2:16:

When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he flew into a rage and ordered the execution of all the male children in Bethlehem and all its neighboring regions who were two years old and younger, according to the time that he had determined from the wise men.

The innocent, male children are slaughtered.

Also, in Wisdom 11:7, the verse talks about the "infants" that are "slain."

For more info on the Holy Innocents, see here.

For a discussion of the authorship of the Book of Wisdom, see HERE.

[count-your-change]

True, many who don't believe any part of the Bible attempt to toss it out on the basis of their own lack of understanding of what is being said.

The context of what Paul wrote shows he was discussing works of the law, the law of Moses, (what other ‘law’ was there that involved circumcision?)

James, again by the context, discusses practical actions, works, that demonstrate faith.

After bemoaning a wicked woman Ecclesiasticus 25 vs. 24 says that ‘of the the woman came the beginning of sin and through her we all die’.

However Paul writes in Romans 5:12 that sin entered by a man and thus death came to all, as Genesis shows.

This is no minor point as Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 uses Adam, the first Adam, as a fleshly person in contrast to the last Adam as a spirit.

Verse 26 says that if a woman goes not as her husband would have her, give her a certificate of divorce and ‘let her go’.

However Deuteronomy 24:1 says that some sort of moral uncleanness was to be the grounds for divorce.

Certainly in it's attempt to sound like the book of Proverbs the book of Ecclesiasticus has good advice but it is not an inspired part of the Bible Canon as it contradicts what the Bible says in the examples I've given.

[count-your-change]

No.

[bdeaner]

No.

Ok, so which canon in the 2nd century do you use, and why? There were multiple versions of the OT and NT at that time. I gave one example, Origen. Which one do you use, and what is the criterion for choosing one over the others?

[count-your-change]

Which canon do I use? I suppose by ‘use’ you mean ‘accept’.

The lists or catalogs of which books were accepted widely,
the Muratorian, Melito’s, Origen are, for the most part, the
same as the sixty-six books of the Bible today.

Others, like the Shepherd of Hermes simply cannot be given weight equal to the unquestioned Bible books.

So what I accept is the canon that has come down to us and has withstood the test of time and follows as Paul described it
a “pattern of (spiritually) healthful words”.
2 Tim. 1:13

The apocryphal books do not meet this standard.

[Alamo-Girl]

I’ve been following your ongoing discussion with Dr. Eckleburg from a previous thread with much interest and have a few comments to share from “outside the box” – in other words, I personally eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men across the board and thus may have a different perspective you might find interesting.

Seems to me the issue narrows down to what one receives as the words of God, how he knows they are His words and how certain he is that he actually knows them.

Personally, I find many ancient manuscripts to be illuminating and am drawn in the Spirit to read them. In that regard, I recommend Charlesworth’s Psuedepigrapha Vol I and II.

But in contrast to these ancient manuscripts, the indwelling Spirit brings the words of God alive within me and that is how I discern the difference and know of a certainty which are the words of God and which are not.

The words of God are spirit and life. The words of men are neither spirit nor life.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

And I thank God for His faithful servants over the ages (Judaic, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) who handled His words according to His will.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deuteronomy 4:2

Bottom line, I give God the glory for the words of God.

NUN. Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. - Psalms 119:105

And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. - Matt 4:3-4

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. – I Corinthians 2:13-14

And like Mary, I cannot get enough of God’s words:

Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. – Luke 10:38-42

And I imagine you all feel the same way. Feeding on His words is the “needful” part.

Also, the Name of God, I AM, is my guide no matter whether what I am looking at is Scripture, the world around me, current events, science and math, ancient manuscripts, etc.

And His Name is my blessed assurance that He looks after His own words.

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. – Isaiah 55:11

Indeed, all of His Names speak to me. And thus although I cherish the Greek translation of the Old Testament, I cannot hold to the Septuagint in preference over the Masoretic.

More specifically, in the beginning of the Song of Moses, which will be sung in heaven along with the Song of the Lamb (Rev 15:2-4) is the announcement of a Name of God – not a major name like I AM but a descriptive one nonetheless:

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

I am not pointing this out to dispute the Scriptural fact that the same name was assigned to the first called – Abraham (Isaiah 51:1-2) and then Peter (Matt 16:17-18) but rather to point out that The Rock is also a Name of God and in this case specially announced in a very important passage from the Old Testament, so important it is sung in heaven with the Song of the Lamb.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

The reason I cannot hold the Septuagint as preferable to the Masoretic is that the Name itself was lost in translation from Hebrew to Greek and then dropped in translation to Latin:

English from Hebrew (Masoretic)

[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar

English from the Greek (Septuagint)

As for God, His works are true, and all His ways are justice. God is faithful and there is no unrighteousness in Him; just and holy is the Lord.

English from Latin (Vulgate)

The works of God are perfect, and all his ways are judgments: God is faithful and without any iniquity, he is just and right.

Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus

After all, announcing a Name of God is the purpose of this passage: “Because I will publish the name of the LORD.”

Of course, Jewish tradition remembers that God’s Name is Rock, Ma’oz Tzur is the favorite Hannukah song. Likewise, despite the Name being lost in translation, Catholic tradition also remembers that God’s Name is the Rock.

Nevertheless, I am much more joyful in the spirit reading the Song of Moses translated from the Masoretic text. When we arrive in heaven, the Song will include His Name.

Another example, the Didache is important to the Catholic deposit of faith but to me it is only illuminating. The words do not come alive in me as I read it. Evidently the words were not alive in the faithful ones selecting books for the canon, because they also did not include it.

And again, for me, it comes to a Name of God. Specially, the Didache misreads the term “living water” which is a descriptive Name of God the Holy Spirit. It says

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm.

Living Water is a descriptive Name of God:

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. - Jeremiah 2:13

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) – John 7:38-39

In sum, it doesn’t matter to me whether my brother in sister in Christ prefers one translation over another, or whether he receives tradition, ancient manuscripts or even current day prophecies as illuminating or even divine as long as he loves God surpassingly above all else and doesn’t deny His Name, especially Who Christ IS.

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. - Matthew 6:9

Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. - Psalms 91:14

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. – Matthew 10:32-33

Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David. - Matthew 22:42

The Name of God must not be lost in any respect whether Scripture or tradition.

And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. – Deut 12:3-4

The above, btw, is why the Jews type “G_d” for God’s Name so that they do not accidentally erase a Name of God.

The denying of God's Names I AM, Alpha and Omega, The Word, Creator etc. is why I reject many modern day beliefs out-of-hand.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. - 2 John 1:10-11

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[bdeaner]

The Old Testament ark is fulfilled in the New Testament in the virgin Mary--who is the new ark if you understand typology along with the early Church father.

Yes, here is a passage from Melito of Sardis that I found while doing some research, which makes explicit mention of typology.

"For each thing has its own time: there is a distinct time for the type, there is a distinct time for the material, and there is a distinct time for the truth. You construct the model. You want this, because you see in it the image of the future work. You procure the material for the model. You want this, on account of that which is going to arise because of it. You complete the work and cherish it alone, for only in it do you see both type and the truth."

Isn't that cool? Here is the whole work:

On the Passover

[count-your-change]

It doesn't require too close an examination of these apocryphal verses to see they have no connection to the
Scriptures cited. Beginning at the top of your list:

(1) Matt. 2:16 tells of Herod's command to kill the boys of Bethlehem two years old and under.
Matthew says this is in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy.

Wisdom 11:7 seems to be speaking of the Egyptian Pharaoh's decree to kill Hebrew babies.

(2) Matt. 6:19, 20 speaks of not storing up perishable treasures on earth in contrast to storing up
imperishable treasures in heaven.

Sirach 29:11 says to lay up treasure according to the commandments of the most High and it would
bring more profit than gold. It speaks of neither heaven or earth or where these treasures were.

(3) Matt. 7:12 is Jesus statement, “the Golden Rule”, a statement of positive action of what we would want for our own person.

Tobit 4:15 speaks of what must be the lowest standard of conduct possible, Don't do to others what you hate.

(4) Matt. 7:16-20 Jesus speaks of the impossibility of gathering grapes or figs from thorns and how good
and bad trees cannot produce fruit contrary to the nature of the tree. This as a means of recognizing false prophets.

Sirach 27:6 says the fruit discloses the dressing or cultivation of the tree and says nothing about the tree being either good or rotten.
The analogy is with a person producing fruit or utterances from the heart.

(5) Matt. 9:36 Jesus views the crowds with pity because spiritually they are like sheep abused and without a shepherd.

Judith 11:19 is where Judith promises Holofernes that he will conquer Jerusalem and scatter it's defenders like sheep without a shepherd. But Judith in reality helps to save the city, an anacorism.

I think that's sufficient to show what you call ‘references’ are nothing of the sort and at best are only the common usage of a few words, something that hardly show a connection of any sort.

[bdeaner]

The lists or catalogs of which books were accepted widely, the Muratorian, Melito’s, Origen are, for the most part, the same as the sixty-six books of the Bible today.

As I mentioned earlier, Origen's canon excludes James, 2nd Peter and 2nd and 3rd epistles of John, but includes the Shephard of Hermas.

The Muratorian fragment is often thought to date around the 2nd c. (e.g., 170) but some have dated the document to the 4th century. See Hahneman, G.F. (1973). The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford: Claredon; and Sunberg, A.C., Jr (1973). Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List. Harvard Theological Review, 66, 1-41.

Melita of Sardes' canon excludes the books of Esther and Nehemiah, as well as the deuterocanonicals, but includes Wisdom.

They are not uniform canons.

More importantly, why choose these canons and not that of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, for example?

You seem to lack a consistent and reasonable criteria for distinguishing which books of the OT are inspired and which are not.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church, much more reasonably it seems to me, looks to the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) -- not to mention later Councils, such as Trent and Florence -- and each of these councils accepted the deuterocanonicals.

And let's not forget that even the Protestant Bible included the deuterocanonicals as late as the 19th c.

Plus, the deuterocanonicals have been found, written in Hebrew, among other OT canonical books in the Dead Sea community at Qumran.

So what I accept is the canon that has come down to us and has withstood the test of time and follows as Paul described it a “pattern of (spiritually) healthful words”. 2 Tim. 1:13

The deuterocanonicals meet this criteria. They serve to support key theological doctrines revealed in the NT, and the prophecies support and validate Christ's divinity and resurrection.

[bdeaner]

"As part of the Septuagint “canon,” the Apocrypha became and still are part of the Christian Bible in both the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Roman Catholic churches. They continued to hold this position, though without definitive and formal church legislation according it to them, until the Reformation churches assigned them (at best) second-class status, on the grounds that they were books which “the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” For most of Christendom during most of Christian history, however, they were and still are simply part of the Bible."

-- Jaroslav Pelikan, Sterling Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University, Whose Bible Is it?: A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages (p. 72).

[bdeaner]

In addition to those early Church fathers I mentioned, there are also many others to choose from, aside from the additional names I listed, who accepted the deuterocanonicals -- Pope St. Clement I, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, Pope St. Innocent I, etc. Plus, there is the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas. the African Code, and the Apostolic COnstitutions -- all support the inspired nature of the deuterocanonicals.

St. Jerome is another name usually trotted out -- probably on this thread, as I recall -- who questioned the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals. But as I mentioned already, I believe, St. Jerome did come to accept the deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture. For example, he wrote: "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

[bdeaner]

Early Fathers and the Deuterocanonicals

Didache

"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

Letter of Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Isa. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Pope Clement I

"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Irenaeus

"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36–5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often reckoned as part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

Polycarp

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is b.asphemed [Isa. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

Irenaeus

"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Hippolytus

"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Daniel 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

Cyprian

"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering." ’ [Gen. 22:1–2] . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’" [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23] (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian

"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshiped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Dan. 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Augustine

" [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

Augustine

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to Be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

Apostolic Constitutions

"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judg. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Jud. 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).

[count-your-change]

No, the canon lists were not consistent. The canon lists were lists of the books widely accepted at the time and some, while not having the authority of the writings of the Apostles, were respected and widely read, The Shepherd, it appears, falling into that class.

“More importantly, why choose these canons and not that of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, for example?”

They just didn't happen to be at the top of my list. But what they quoted or listed as Scripture would not be much different. Clement quoted or referred to books the others didn't, whether he accepted them as “canonical” or “ecclesiastical” (see below) , who knows?

I cited them as examples of very early lists of what was widely accepted at the time. None of the lists was an official fixing in place of the Bible canon. These early lists are notable for what they leave out, the great majority of what is generally called the “apocrypha” and included in Catholic Bibles.
Some of the books left out have become accepted as Biblical Scripture without question, virtually everywhere, 2nd and 3rd. John, 2nd. Peter, Jude, and so forth.
Not so the books the A.V. of 1611 grouped together as the Apocrypha.

Around 400 Rufinus wrote in his ‘Expositions of the Creed’ that what had been passed down to them were the sixty-six books of the Bible,

“But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not “canonical” but “ecclesiastical” by the ancients: that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways and the Judgment of Peter. They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named “apocrypha,” which they would not have read in the churches”

“....read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine...”

Yes, indeed. Because they were not part of the Bible and were recognized as such.

(Yes, I note the more restrictive usage of “apocrypha”.)

So by 400 Rufinius’ list of what was accepted as “canonical” was exactly the same as Protestant Bibles.
As was Gregory of Nazianzus’ ( c. 380) list excepting the absence of Revelation.

“Plus, the deuterocanonicals have been found, written in Hebrew, among other OT canonical books in the Dead Sea community at Qumran.”

What else has been found there and is being found there a criteria for inclusion in the Bible?

“The deuterocanonicals meet this criteria. They serve to support key theological doctrines revealed in the NT, and the prophecies support and validate Christ's divinity and resurrection.”

Would you care to point out where I can these verses in the “deuterocanonicals”? I have them here in front of me so I'd like to read for myself, you understand. So where can I find these verses?

.