Claims I to X on "Apocrypha"

List of claims

First the whole list:

• "The additional books in the Catholic Bible are known as the deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. They are Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch."
  
  
  • I It is claimed each of them is an additional book. Not like "additional parts" of some other book.
  • II It is left to imagine they are all the "additional OT material".
  
  
  
• "The Catholic Bible also includes additions to the books of Esther and Daniel."
  
  
  • III It is claimed they are additions, rather than Protestant OT having subtractions.
  
  
  
• "Should the Apocrypha be included in the Bible? There was significant debate in the early Christian church, with a majority of the early church fathers rejecting the idea that the Apocrypha belonged in the Bible."
  
  
  • IV It is claimed there was a significant debate, not just an exchange between St Jerome and St Augustine.
  • V It is claimed that early Church Fathers, more specifically a majority of them, these being Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and (immediately?) post-Nicene fathers, taking sides in this debate, concluded actively for excluding the books in question.
  
  
  
• "However, under tremendous pressure from Rome, Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, included the Apocrypha, despite Jerome’s insistence that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible."
  
  
  • VI It is claimed St Jerome caved in to pressure from Rome and that it was tremendous.
  • VII It is claimed he insisted, not just suggested, they did not belong in the Bible.
  
  
  
• "The Apocrypha was not formally/officially made a part of the Catholic Bible, though, until the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant Reformation."
  
  
  • VIII It is left to imagine that Catholicism had an earlier equally official list without the books.
  • IX It is claimed there was was no kind of official status for the books before Trent.
  
  
  
• "The early Protestant Reformers, in agreement with Judaism, determined that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible, and therefore removed the Apocrypha from Protestant Bibles."
  
  
  • X It is claimed or admitted that Protestant Reformers were agreeing with Judaism.

Now, one by one.

I It is claimed each of them is an additional book. Not like "additional parts" of some other book.

Of these seven, Baruch is in fact considered to have been in Ezra's "22 books" list, namely as a part of Jeremiah, which is named in it.

Why is this important? Well, because Protestants don't claim to have 47 books, but 66. This means, their OT claims to have sometimes more than one book, where Ezra's list had only one. Uncontroversial examples are Ezra's Samuel -> Protestant I and II Samuel (Catholic I and II Kings), Ezra's Kings -> Protestant I and II Kings (Catholic III and IV Kings), Ezra's Chronicles -> Protestant I and II Chronicles, Catholic I and II Paralipomenon.

Wouldn't this affect the chapter numbers? I mean, first chapter in II Samuel would be 32:nd chapter overall in Ezra's Samuel?

No, because the chapter divisions are much later, invented by a Catholic bishop who loved hunting and who knew the Bible by heart, Stephen Langdon. On one hunt, he came up with chapter divisions for the whole Bible.

A more controversial example of this is, does Ezra's Jeremiah include only Protestant Jeremiah and Lamentations? Or does it include Jeremiah, Baruch and Lamentations? Ezra's Ezra, does it include Protestant Ezra and Nehemiah (Catholic I and II Ezra, Orthodox II and III Ezra) or does it also include Orthodox I Ezra, a prequel to "Ezra and Nehemiah" not found in Protestant, Jewish or even Catholic Bibles.

Indeed, one Protestant controversialist has claimed that I and II Maccabees as per Catholic Bibles only corresponds to I of 2 books of Maccabees in an ancient list and that the II of two would be III and IV Maccabees found in Orthodox, but not Catholic Bibles.

This means that how many books are numbered now does not automatically correspond to how many books there were for exactly same text in Ezra's 22 books, and also that we cannot know from the titles alone what text they included.

It also seems the 22 books were in fact 24.

Biblewheel gives this disposition:
https://www.biblewheel.com//Canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.php

• Torah
  
  
  • 1 - 5 = 1 - 5, Five books of Torah, uncontroversial.
  
  
  
• Prophets
  
  
  • Early prophets
    • 6, 7 = 6, 7 Joshua, Judges
    • 8 = 9, 10 I and II Samuel (Kings)
    • 9 = 11, 12, I and II (III and IV) Kings
    
    
    
  • Latter prophets
    • 10 = 23, Isaiah
    • 11 = 24, Jeremiah
    • 12 = 26, Ezekiel
    
    
    
  • The 12 prophets
    13 = 28 - 39 Twelve Prophets
  
  
  
• Writings
  
  
  • 14 = 19 Psalms
  • 15 = 20 Proverbs
  • 16 = 18 Job
  • 17 = 22 Song of Songs
  • 18 = 8 ! Ruth
  • 19 = 25, Lamentations
  • 20 = 21, Ecclesiastes
  • 21 = 17, Esther
  • 22 = 27, Daniel
  • 23 = 15, 16, Ezra, Nehemiah
  • 24 = 13, 14, I and II Chronicles

Elsewhere one can find claims like Lamentations being originally included in Jeremiah, and I suppose I have even seen a note saying Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs were both included in Solomon.

And obviously, the Maccabean books and Syrach were written, while Tobit and Judith were arguably added after Ezra had made his list.

For Solomon's Wisdom, I am not sure whether it was mislaid when Ezra made his list or was included in a Solomonic collection.

One could theoretically also explain the 24 books in a 22 book list by numbers 23 and 24 (Ezra, Nehemiah, perhaps I Ezra, I and II Paralipomenon) being completed after the list was completed. Attached to it as an appendix.

II It is left to imagine they are all the "additional OT material".

As to chapters in Esther and Daniel, this is actually corrected in the text behind the next claim, but this leaves, as said, out that "I Ezra", "III and IV Maccabees" are also candidates.

Similarily, there is a Psalm 151, which Catholic Church uses, but does not count as canonical, while Orthodox Church does.

Further South, then, Ethiopian Tawheedo Church (Ethiopian Copts) have fully 81 books, including Ethiopian Henoch. This means, of Christian OT canons, the Roman Catholic one is shorter than any other than the Protestant ones. It can also be noted, Trent canonised all of it, but not in a manner so as to definitely excluding the Orthodox or Ethiopian wider canons. At least that would be my reading of the text.

III It is claimed they are additions, rather than Protestant OT having subtractions.

When Christianity starts getting going, you have competing canons for OT : LXX, Hebrew.

Very many early Church Fathers say they adher to the "22 books". As can be seen from the above list is, this need definitely not imply rejection of other OT books, it can often be implying simply "we Christians accept the Old Testament".

Again, when a Church Father shows reservation against books, this sometimes involves those on the 22 book list, as St Athanasius was suspicious of Esther. Perhaps due to Purim by then having taken on some Antichristian ribaldry.

Nevertheless, as a Catholic I would definitely not miss Esther, this is a source for Catholic Mariology.

Now, it is true that one early Christian Bible canon actually did involve nearly exactly the books of the OT that Protestants accept.

The 59th canon forbade the readings in church of uncanonical books. The 60th canon listed Canonical books, with the New Testament containing 26 books, omitting the Book of Revelation, and the Old Testament including the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible plus the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah; but excluding all the deuterocanonical books proper. It is also believed that they may have demonized the "Second Book of Enoch", which led to its degeneration.[1]

The authenticity of the 60th canon is doubtful[2] as it is missing from various Greek manuscripts and may have been added later[1] to specify the extent of the preceding 59th canon. The Latin version of the canons of Laodicea consistently omit the canon list. Around 350 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem produced a list matching that from the Council of Laodicea.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea

So, "foiled again" as Lobelia Sackville-Baggins would say, not even Laodicaea gives a Protestant OT canon. It adds Book of Baruch, which we do also, and it also adds, which we do in another way, Epistle of Jeremiah (in a Catholic Bible, last chapter of Baruch):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Jeremiah

While, obviously, it omits Revelation from NT.

On the other hand, councils of Rome and Carthage gave one identic list, at least verbally identic to that of Trent, though, as said, some have claimed its 2 books of Maccabees would at present match I - IV and not just I and II.

The Council of Rome was a meeting of Catholic Church officials and theologians which took place in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I, the current bishop of Rome. It was one of the fourth century councils that "gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

Citing "histories":

Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

It can be added, wiki cites one Taylor Marshall as source for this, and he is, like I and Sungenis, a Catholic apologist.

Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon
by Dr Taylor Marshall | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008
https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html

The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[5] issued a canon of the Bible on 28 August 397. The primary source of information about the third Council of Carthage comes from the Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ, which presents a compilation of ordinances enacted by various church councils in Carthage during the fourth and fifth centuries. In one section of this code the following paragraph concerning the canon of Scripture appears.

And citing a portion:

Salomonis libri quinque, Duodecim libri prophetarum, Esaias, Ieremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Iudith, Hester, Hesdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage

Enchiridium Biblicum 8-10 is cited, and footnote six says:

The Latin text and English translation are from B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (5th ed. Edinburgh, 1881), pp. 440, 541–2.

If they are Catholic additions, so is the Apocalypse.

IV It is claimed there was a significant debate, not just an exchange between St Jerome and St Augustine.

I have earlier written on the fact that one Protestant theologian, woman and liberal, but better read in Church Fathers than GotQuestions, says that St Jerome alone had the intuition to limit inspiration to the books where Jews also had the text.

I am sorry to admit I have lost the reference for now, despite looking at more than one of the likelier blogs for such a message.

Either way, when St Athanasius cites "22 books" this simply cannot be taken as polemics against the wider canon.

Sts Jerome and Augustine did have an exchange. The former asked for advice (as usual) giving as his opinion to use only such OT books as are found in Hebrew (in use among already post-Temple, Rabbinic, Judaism). The latter cited as opinion of the bishops - not specifically that of Rome, but of the bishops - that they are read in Church. I'm citing from memory.



V It is claimed that early Church Fathers, more specifically a majority of them, these being Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and (immediately?) post-Nicene fathers, taking sides in this debate, concluded actively for excluding the books in question.

As already mentioned more than once, and I am not a primary source for such a claim, but the truth is, most of this so called debate and most of its so-called siding with Masoretic canon, this is simply the formulaic reference to "22 books" as Ezra named the Tanakh.

VI It is claimed St Jerome caved in to pressure from Rome and that it was tremendous.

He obeyed what St Augustine presented as consensus of bishops of the Church, and I don't think he specifically mentioned Rome even to St Jerome. Obviously, St Jerome was not a rebel against the hierarchic order of the Church.

VII It is claimed he insisted, not just suggested, they did not belong in the Bible.

You cannot both "insist" and at the same time obey the opposite to what you insist.

VIII It is left to imagine that Catholicism had an earlier equally official list without the books.

While councils of Rome and Carthage gave official lists, these were less so, since only involving local councils, Trent being a general or Ecumenic one, and they were not without but with the books. The Council of Laodicaea, also local, gave a list without most of them, but also omitted the Apocalypse.

IX It is claimed there was was no kind of official status for the books before Trent.

While councils of Rome and Carthage are less high than that of Trent, they are official and include them.

X It is claimed or admitted that Protestant Reformers were agreeing with Judaism.

And what is more, with Rabbinic Judaism, with post-Temple Judaism.

While this is a claim to go back to sources of Christianity before Constantine, it is also an admission of seeking such sources in contemporary Christ-rejectors.