Catholics, a question about your Bible?

Question

Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria, in his Paschal Letter of 367, lists the books of the canon. His Old Testament list lacks any books of the apocrypya (except Baruch, which he lists as an extension of Jeremiah.) Furthermore, he singles out several of the apocryphal books at the end of the letter, specifically stating that they are *not* to be included in the canon (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, as well as a few others).

In light of this letter, how do you justify the later inclusion of the apocryphal books into the Catholic canon?

Answer 1

I am not Roman Catholic, but I have researched this matter and can answer this question.



1) In light of this letter, how do you justify the later inclusion of the apocryphal books into the Catholic canon?



The Scriptures included in the Roman Catholic Bible are not based solely upon the recommendations of Pope Athanasius of Alexandria, though it **may** be true that the selection of the New Testament Scriptures relied heavily on that document.



Rather, the selection relies most heavily on the decisions made at the council of Laodicea, the council of Carthage and - most importantly - the council of Trent.





2) His Old Testament list lacks any books of the apocrypya (except Baruch, which he lists as an extension of Jeremiah.)



A little over-simple. The traditional "Apocrypha" includes many non-Hebrew additions to Daniel and Esther as well as Baruch (which was unknown in Hebrew until relatively recently). It is likely - since Athanasius included Greek Baruch (unknown in Hebrew at that time) - that he also considered the additions to Daniel and Esther to be part and parcel of the canon.





3) the Paschal letter of 367 is famous for being the first definitive canon list presented by a Christian figure



Inaccurate claim (see: council of Laodicea). Rather, this was the first known list (not definitive) that included all of the New Testament Scriptures and none in addition. It is famous not because it was the first list or because it was considered a definitive list, but rather **only** because it is the first time we see in writing an exact listing of the Scriptures that are found in our modern **New Testament.**



It is important to note that this "pope" was not "Pope" in the same sense as the modern Roman Catholic "Pope". He was bishop of Alexandria, which (according to the custom of the time) carried the title "pope" as did the bishops of many other cities at that particular time.





4) Having said that, there are many, many other examples of Christians in the 3rd/4th century rejecting the apocrypha, most famously, Jerome.



Jerome

a) did not **reject** the Apocrypha (in fact, he translated several of them for inclusion into the Vulgate)

b) at **one point in his life** considered the non-Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament to be less valuable than the protocanonical books

c) identified as "apocryphal" - employing the original meaning of that word - any Jewish Scriptures that he could not find in Hebrew (and wrote that was the reason for considering them apocryphal). He was not aware that Hebrew was the original language of Baruch, Ben Sirach and 1 Maccabees and probably others of the Apocrypha as well.

d) late in his life agreed that all of the books found in the Vulgate were canonical (including those Apocryphal books that he did not translate, which includes several, though he translated Tobit, Judith and Ben Sirach)





5) he goes to great lengths to make clear that the apocrypha were not considered canon by the church of his day.



Jerome did not make such a claim in those writings, and indeed we see contrary claims from Augustine of Hippo of the same period. Jerome did not claim to speak for the church (as you suggest) when he wrote of the lesser value of those Scriptures he identifies as "apocryphal", and the **clear and indisputable decision reached by the church** in the 397 council of Carthage **before** Jerome had completed translating Scriptures for the Vulgate (but during his lifetime) prove that "the church" considered *all* of the deuterocanonical books other than Baruch to be "canonical" (though not all of the books known in English as "Apocrypha").



Indeed, as far as I have been able to determine the first inclusion of Baruch in Latin Bibles occurs in the 13th century. Our oldest complete Vulgate does not include Baruch, and I do not believe that there is any known Latin Bible predating Codex Gigas that includes Baruch.





Conclusion: you (honestly, I think) make some false claims about the "Apocrypha" and Jerome and do not seem to realize the difference between the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanon. You assume that Athanasius' Pascal Letter is somehow definitive in establishing the Biblical canon when in fact no Bible known to exist has ever used that letter as the definitive list of Biblical Scriptures. In other words: you need to do more research on this topic. I recommend you research these things (listed in chronological order):

- Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus

- Council of Laodicea

- Synod of Hippo

- 397 Council of Carthage

- Decretum Gelasianum

- Codex Amiatinus

- Codex Gigas

- Wyclif Bible

- Luther Bible

- 1563 Convocation of Canterbury

- Council of Trent



- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_scriptures_d.html

Answer 2

No one well versed in History would argue that all of Christianity was of one mind when it came to the Canon. Or that it fell from the sky whole and intact.

You can add to your own research the Bishop Marcion who around 250AD wanted to omit James, something that later on Martin Luther also advocated.



So again.. anyone well versed in early Christian history will know that the Bishops were not all in agreement. Including the Bishop of Rome, aka "the Pope" Perhaps your assumption is that because the Pope didn't agree with some of the other Bishops, that no Catholic should regard the Apocrypha as scripture -- But you'd be misconstruing the role of the Papacy and the role of the Bishops.



What you have illustrated nicely, is the absolute NEED to settle the matter.. and this was done in a series of councils, most noteably at the council of Hipo and Carthage around 396-397AD

No doubt such disagreements were central to WHY the Church convened a series of ecumenical councils to resolve the issue. For Christianity to stay ONE, the issue of the canon, HAD to be settled.



But the role of the Pope was NOT to settle this, but to turn it over to the Bishops to discuss and resolve amongst themselves.





What they decided and WHY Catholics still adhere to it, is that amongst other things, The Septugint was used by Jews and Greek speaking Christian converts. That much of the Church's translations and bibles used the Greek version almost 2/3rds of the time and so we have ample evidence that Christians SHOULD regard the Septuagint as sacred Scripture, since they knew that the Apostles used it as well as the Essene Jews, which most likely was the Jewish tradition that Christ was from.





The Dead Sea Scolls contain the Deuterocanonical texts, what Jerome and Protestants called the Apocryphal writings, further proving that the Catholic Bishops of the 4th century were correct in their understanding and inclusion of it, because we have better evidence now, that Jews (perhaps not all of them) did see the Septuagint as 'holy scripture'





What the Catholic church later rejected in the Council of Trent around 1545 was the Protestant concept that Christians should not use the Deuterocanon because later on, Jews closed off their canon and it didn't include the Apocrypha.

But the logic that the Council of Trent rejected was that, Jews ALSO didn't consider the New Testament to be "scriptural" either.. so to be consistent or by the same logic... Christians then shouldn't include any of the New Testament writings either. So obviously, to the Council of Trent, the Protestant logic had a huge glaring flaw in it, and therefore Trent once again, re-affirmed the original canon set back in the 4th century.

Anotherwards, In final analysis, it didn't seem wise to allow the Jewish religion to dictate Christian canon.

Answer 3

All you have done is show that there was some early disagreement among bishops as to the canon of Scripture. This is why a council of bishops was called in Hippo in 393



The synod of 393 is best known for being the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of Sacred Scripture that corresponds to the modern Orthodox and Roman Catholic canon (including the books classed by Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical books and by Protestants as "Apocrypha"). The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage pending the ratification of the "Church across the sea".

Answer 4

First, it is important to note that this guy was not a Catholic pope. In fact, other than your link, I find no indication that anyone called him a pope. One thing is for sure - he is not on the list of Catholic popes. That aside,



I have to ask why it matters. Non-Catholics sometimes seem to overestimate the pope's role and influence in our faith, and I think you might be doing that here. The pope was writing a letter. It was not doctrinal nor binding in any way. He was expressing an opinion. The pope at that time had an opinion. We believe he happened to be wrong. We rather turn to an authoritative decision on what is canon, which happens only when the pope declares something "ex cathedra", or at a Church council, such as the 3rd council of Carthage, which lists the deuterocanon/apocrypha:



----It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept. ----

Answer 5

Athanasius was never a Pope. By his time, the canon was not yet universally agreed upon. We justify the inclusion of the books he rejected because:



1. As I said, he was not Pope.

2. Popes are not infallible anyway. Only when they speak ex cathedra are their pronouncements binding.

3. The canon was not closed at this time.

4. The Apocrypha were part of the LXX, read by the majority of early Christians.

5. The Apocrypha are alluded to many, many times in the NT.

Answer 6

367 is "the first"? Athanasius's was one opinion, very conservative, among many, and one very late to the meeting. And Jerome's "rejection" was a matter, during his translation of the Bible into Latin, of discovering that there were no Hebrew version of those books. He still translated them, he just wasn't sure how seriously he should take them. The Church still accepted them clear up until the day that Martin Luther took them out for not agreeing with his new doctrines. (Did you know Luther strongly considered rejecting James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation? He didn't only because he couldn't think of a believable excuse.

Answer 7

rather, you're able to desire to alter your wording merely somewhat: Hebrew Bible Roman Catholic Bible Protestant Bible The Jewish pupils finished the version of the Hebrew Bible in regarding the 0.33 century. That textual content is coated in the two the RC and Prot. Bible. The order of the books is distinctive, because of the fact of underlying assumptions. The Christian Bible (the recent testomony) wasn't rather nailed down till almost the 10th century or so. After that, it became locked in. This became accomplished in a sequence of Church Councils. this text is an identical in the two the RC and Prot. Bible, and the previous testomony is incredibly plenty an identical in the two of those Bibles, different than that the order would be somewhat distinctive. the sole distinction between the RC and Prot. Bibles is the presence of the Apocrypha -- countless books that have been unknown in Hebrew, yet have been coated mechanically in Greek language translations of the previous testomony that have been in primary use around the time of the early Church. That Greek translation of the previous testomony (stated as the Septuagint) became so primary (maximum Jews did no longer at that component bear in mind a thank you to talk or study Hebrew anymore) that everytime you stumble on the previous testomony quoted interior the recent testomony, it is often the Septuagint textual content they are quoting.

Answer 8

unquestionably, you may desire to alter your wording in basic terms a sprint: Hebrew Bible Roman Catholic Bible Protestant Bible The Jewish scholars complete the version of the Hebrew Bible in bearing directly to the third century. That text textile is blanketed in the two the RC and Prot. Bible. The order of the books is diverse, because of the fact of underlying assumptions. The Christian Bible (the recent testomony) wasn't incredibly nailed down till pretty much the 10th century or so. After that, it replaced into locked in. This replaced into executed in a sequence of Church Councils. this article is an identical in the two the RC and Prot. Bible, and the previous testomony is especially plenty an identical in the two of those Bibles, different than that the order may well be somewhat diverse. the only distinction between the RC and Prot. Bibles is the presence of the Apocrypha -- various books that have been unknown in Hebrew, yet have been blanketed immediately in Greek language translations of the previous testomony that have been in time-honored use around the time of the early Church. That Greek translation of the previous testomony (referred to as the Septuagint) replaced into so time-honored (maximum Jews did no longer at that component remember the thank you to speak or examine Hebrew anymore) that whenever you hit upon the previous testomony quoted interior the recent testomony, it incredibly is often the Septuagint text textile they're quoting.

Answer 9

In 397 at the Council of Carthage, all quarrels were set to sleep when the Catholic Church confirmed that all 73 books of our Bible today is the official list of books. This was also the same list that was discussed in previous Councils... even the Jewish Council in Jamnia in the 1st century. It has always been 73 books... Period.

Answer 10

Actually, Mr. Turtle, you're wrong. Peruse the list over at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons



Actually, the early Christians used the Septuagint which includes the "Apocrypha". If you go back to the Greek New Testament, it quotes the Septuagint. Athanasius all rejected the COMPLETE book of Esther.

Answer 11

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit



Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter



His list has twenty-two books corresponding to twenty-two letters of Hebrew alphabet. They comprise five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (Samuel and Kings) counted as two books, Chronicles, Ezra 1 and 2 (Nehemiah) in one book, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job and ends with books of Prophets (Twelve minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel). Athanasius list has Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah together with Lamentations but it omits Esther. He considered Esther together with Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith and Tobit as having inferior grade but still approved them to be read (edifying) in the church. However in his other works, Athanasius cited Tobit, Sirach and Wisdom as scripture, indicating that he did not always restrict himself to only those 22 books (English translation is from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 4 with added scripture reference).

(taken from http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/athanasius-and-canon-of-old-testament/)



So you could see that St. Athanasius NEVER said not to use them and even used them himself.



By the way, I don't think he was ever Pope but was a Bishop.

Answer 12

Just because a book is not included in the bible does not make it invalid. The catholic church keeps a list of forbidden books. If its not on there is okay, just not in the bible.

Answer 13

jerome and anathasius were not popes , opinions of those outside the ones who know will be listened to, but not accepted by the holy spirit

Answer 14

Why this particular one? Why not all the others who say they DO belong in the canon?

Answer 15

"If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:19

I have to eat now. I will update later more on the subject.

Answer 16

I don't believe in any website that's not catholic because protestant websites try to invent the history or to change the version

Answer 17

"Pope Athanasius I" was never "Pope", he was just a Bishop who folks LATER called a Pope...



(That doesn't make Catholicism any less silly, but it still isn't as silly as Protestants who would MOCK the faith THEIR silly beliefs are actually founded on!)

Answer 18

Those books were keep out of the bible because they were from the Gnostic's and full of heresies

Answer 19

I agree with the Catholic canon.I'm not a scholar myself so I take their word for it.

Answer 20

The Catholics have it right....just sayin

Answer 21

Your point is? We have them in our bible now. Why dont you explain why Martin Luther decided to take them out?

Answer 22

na its too boring.........