Talk:Deuterocanonical books/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Deuterocanonical books. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Esdras

I'm somewhat puzzled by the reference to 2 Esdras here (left over from an earlier version of the page), since 2 Esdras isn't actually one of the Deutero books, or at least it isn't listed in the list. Anyone know the Real Story?

There is confusion about the Esdras books, see Esdras.

WikiProject

Based on a suggestion in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, I have started the skeleton of a WikiProject to try to cut down on the overlap between the various presentations of the canon. I think that a lot of people working here will want input on this. Feel free! Mpolo 13:58, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

suggestion to merge with apocrypha

That would not be neutral. For Catholics, the deuterocanonicals and apocrypha are not the same. For Protestants, who reject the deuterocanonicals, they are the same. See Biblical Canon 64.169.5.155 on 26 July 2005

While Protestants consider neither the deuterocanonicals nor the apocryphals to be the inspired Word of God appropriate for cannonization, the deuterocanonicals are still considered of historical value, especially 1 and 2 Maccabees. They are not the same. Jzylstra on 3 August 2005

The two are NOT to be merged. They are two separate things, and merging the articles would only confuse things more. Merge them and you might as well as merge New Testament with Jewish Tanakh. --FourthAve 12:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

- while they are not the same, some differentation is needed. Is the Apocrapha the deutros plus esdras (which were in the 1609 douay)? or is Apocrypha the wider pseudographica? Some tidy up is required. On balance I would favor that the aricle on the deutrocannonical should have something about the Apocrypha (as defined in the 1609 kjav)--ClemMcGann 20:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

do not merge as per above Roodog2k 02:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

These should not be merged, as they are separate things. driscolj 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I vote strongly do not merge. Apocrypha is 'hidden', Deuterocanonicals likewise 'second canon'. I am mormon, and consider myself neither catholic nor protestant. EG: I claim the 'Book of Mormon' to be canon, perhaps I could call it a 'second canon'. Yet I don't consider it part of the Apocrypha despite parallels. Others may find the book Tobit (or Tobias) apocryphal, but not canonical. I see apocrypha and canon as independant things, which ought not be defined as one;Whereas apocrypha, a concept and title given to a set of books, and Canon the proverbial "list of books" which a given religion reveres as holy scripture. To structure for clarity, and prevent sectorial content domination, keep the ideas separate; . . .[now that i've had my rant] have we discussed enough to remove the "merge?" baners and to allow the community to improve the articles? I perveice a basic consensis so far. (and ClemMcGann, I think you're on to something.)--Bielenberg 16:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Do no merge...the two are distinct. However, coordination must occur so that content is not overly duplicated and assertions in each article are not contradictory --Dpr 02:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Deuterocanonical vs. Apocrypha

What Catholics term deuterocanonical books, Protestants term apocrypha. For extra-biblical books (Old Testament or New) which are part of neither canon are termed pseudepigraphy (an article that needs some work, by the way, including changing the name to pseudepigraphia.
1 & 2 Esdras is the form that appears in some Protestant versions of the apocrypha; Catholics term 1st Esdras as 3rd Esdras and regard it as extra-canonical (along with the Prayer of Manassah), but of sufficient quality to be associated with the Bible. Other versions call these books Ezra.

--FourthAve 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Deuterocanonical vs. Anaginoskomena

Deuterocanonical is a term coined by a Catholic theologian to refer to 7 books and 4 parts of books defined as canonical by the council of Trent. It is a very particular definition which is not applicable to Eastern or Oriental or Ethiopian Orthodox except as a loose analogy. These churches simply do not have canons as well defined as that of Trent or of Luther. Greeks call books of the Septuagint that are not in the Tanakh Anaginoskomena. I don't know what Ethiopians call them, but I doubt it's deuterocanonicals.

This article needs to be entirely restructured to avoid obscuring this fact. Rwflammang 17:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You just included a reference to http://www.sxws.com/charis/apol6.htm which says on its board "The Purpose of this board is to EXPOSE the false teaching of Catholicism in light of Scripture." I suggest that you remove it. ClemMcGann 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this reference. Rwflammang 16:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Found the reference. It predated my edit. I removed it anyway.

Who considers Esther and Song of Songs to be Deuterocanonical

I found a very odd and unsourced claim in this article. Who considers Esther and Song of Songs to be Deuterocanonical? RK 02:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporarily moved from article

To which are sometimes added:

Of the deuterocanonical books, the last two are the only ones widely accepted today by Protestants and Jews.

Proposed restoration

Links to references can be found in the article Protocanonical books. I don't want to digress too much on this subject since almost everyone considers the whole Tanakh to be protocanonical, but I thought some mention must be made. I propose the following sentence:

Some add to this list one or more of Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Job, or Ezra-Nehemiah due to their absence in some early canons. See the article Protocanonical books for more details.

Rwflammang 05:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction between Deuterocanonical books and Books of the Bible articles

In the Deuterocanonical books article, it is implied that Protestants do not have any of the deuterocanonical books in their canon at all, except for these three:

Yet the Books of the Bible article does not list these three books. (Nor does it list any of the other deuterocanonical books. Which article is correct? And is it really true that all Protestant groups reject all of the other Deuterocanonical books? RK 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why these books aren't listed there. They are in the Vulgate. Rwflammang 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to generalize about Protestants, of course, but I've never seen a Bible published in English by a Protestant that contained deuteros in its Old Testament. These are always in the Apocrypha section if it's present, and completely absent if it's not. I have seen them in Prot. Bibles published in Latin and a really old one in Spanish though, so all would be an exageration. Rwflammang 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Aslo, doesn't this sentence contradict the paragraph which precedes it in this article?

As Protestants do not recognize the authority of the Council of Trent, they usually consider most of the deuterocanonical books to be part of the Biblical apocrypha.

The word apocryphal means non-canonical. Does that clear it up? See the change I made to the article. Rwflammang 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No it does not. That is just an opinion. Apocryphal actually means hidden. The reason why these books are so called, and the reason why they are in a separate section (among those who accept 2Esdras), is in obedience to 2Esdras14:44-48 "So during the forty days, ninety-four books were written. And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge." And I did so". There is now, too much opinion in the article. ClemMcGann 08:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In the preface to the 1611 KJAV, it is said that these books prepared the way of the Lord "This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."

There was no suggestion in the 1611 that these books were non-canonical. The opposite is the case "The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God." ClemMcGann 08:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How is reporting that (most) Protestants do not regard the Apocrypha as canonical too much opinion? For that matter, Catholics do not usually call books they consider canonical apocrypha. Call a deuterocanonical book apocryphon on wikipedia and you'll stir up a firestorm. Jerome used the word apocrypha to mean non-canonical in his prologues, and most western Christians have followed his usage, if not the canon he mentions. Rwflammang 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Does this paragraph really belong in the intro?

The term apocryphal is sometimes used pejoratively, leading to the use of deuterocanonical as a euphemism. This euphemistic use of deuterocanonical contributes to the confusion between the deuterocanon and the Apocrypha.

Rwflammang 05:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the reference to the Apocrypha in the lead gradually got mangled. In the most recent version, this process resulted in a paragraph basically stating: "although this term does not mean non-canonical, these books are designated as Apocrypha" -- which is non-canonical!!

I went back through the older versions of the article and attempted to restore the original meaning and purpose for this part of the lead, as far as I can recognize it.

StephenMacmanus (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that while the Protestants consider them non-canonical, the Orthodox and the Catholics have always considered them fully canonical (i.e. inspired and to be read in church). You can check also reading here the Articles Books of the Bible and Christian Biblical canons. Thus I've modified the last sentence. A ntv (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Although it wasn't the primary motive for my changes, that distinction is definitely related to this term. Thanks for your clarifying edit. StephenMacmanus (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph

I cleaned up the third paragraph, which to me seemed a bit clunky with unclear antecedants. But I still have some real problems with the ever problematic second paragraph:

The word deuterocanonical comes from the Greek meaning 'belonging to the second canon' and indicates the delayed acceptance of these books as scriptural texts until the resolution of this dispute in the early church.

I don't think that anyone ever doubted whether the deuterocanonical texts were scriptural; the issue is whether they are canonical. I also don't think that the issue was resolved in the early church. In the Roman Catholic church the issue was not definitively resolved until quite late. Outside of the Roman Catholic church, it hardly seems that the issue can be considered resolved even today. I also think that the antecedant to "this dispute" should be made more clear. It is called a "debate" in the previous paragraph. Rwflammang (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edit, which definitely improved my initial description. "Conflation" is definitely the concept I was groping towards.

As I see it, another point of the original author's inclusion of this sentence in the lead is to describe the prefix "deutero-" as indicating a later acceptance in the single canon, as opposed to a parallel or additional canon of some sort. I used the term "scriptural" in the sense of "biblical" to avoid repeating the term "canonical" for smoother reading. In my opinion, the sentence approaches a tautology if it just states that "belonging to the second canon" refers to the delayed acceptance as canonical texts.

I think a secondary goal was to allude to the longer history of these books before the term deuterocanonical was created. Although the phrase "in the early church" was part of the original edit, so I'm not wedded to it, I can't think of a better alternative.

This article is basically silent about the collection of books to which deuterocanonical now refers after the fourth and fifth centuries, but

I think it's accurate to consider the issue of the canon as less prominent until it was reopened as part of the events of the Reformation.

Whether or not this apparent timeline is accurate, I think some brief reference to the ongoing process in the lead of the article is appropriate, although it isn't the place for any details. I can't think of a better option than the current phrasing.

The same phrase "in the early church" is also used in the lead of the article for protocanonical books, along with a reference to the annotations for the 1635 Douay Bible. Maybe that context will clarify the meaning, but I don't have access to the source. StephenMacmanus (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My objection to the "in the early church" phrase is that it too lacks a clear antecedent. Was the dispute in the early church? (Indeed it was.) Or was the resolution? (No, it was not.) This needs to be made clear. Rwflammang (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

in the IV-V there was a general dispute to define the books to be included in the canon, not only the "deuterocanonials". This dispute went on for some book (as Revelation) for a couple of centuries. It was not anyway a "hard dispute", because the ancients did not have the "sola scriptura" and the issue was mainly whether to read them in church or not. Anyway the dispute was won by who considered these deuterocanonical books as canonical: actually they were included without objection in both Orthodox and Catholic Bibles. Up to the 16 century, they did not even needed a separate name to be grouped. A ntv (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the dispute did not become hard, except among Protestants because of their sola (canonica) scriptura doctrine. But I don't think the presence of these books in bibles is a strong indicator of their perceived canonicity. Those same bibles, after all, contained prefaces saying these books were not canonical. They also contained apocrypha in their Old and sometimes even their New Testaments. I can't say this enough, the dispute over the canonicity of these books was never a dispute as to whether they belonged in the Bible. Luther did not remove these books from his bible. King James did not remove them from his. The notion that bibles should contain only canonical books is a recent one, and today that notion seems to afflict Catholics as well as Protestants.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the dispute of the canonicity of these books (not their inclusion in the Bible, but their canonicity) continued right up to Trent (and this despite a strong statement in their favor at Florence). Outside the Roman Catholic Church, the dispute continues today. Rwflammang (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, don't confuse the situation after the 16 century with the situation before it. No Bible before the 16th century had a preface saying these books are not canonical. Further, the main indicator of their "canonicity" was their use in liturgical rites: they were read as "Word of God". By the way the first formal list of canonical books was issued before Trent, at the council of Florence (signed also by the Orthodox), and these books were in. A ntv (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the prologues of St Jerome found in the manuscripts of the Vulgate explicitly labelled all the deuterocanonical books (except Baruch) as "not in the canon". Jerome's prologue to Kings limited the number of canonical Old Testament books to the 24 found in the Hebrew Bible. (Links to these prologues can be found in the notes to the article Vulgate.) I agree that the deuterocanonical books were used in the liturgy, but then the apocryphal 4 Esdras was and still is used in the liturgy of the Roman rite, so it seems to me that the liturgy is an indicator which is not absolute. While the list made by Florence was substantially the same as the one made by Trent, Florence never used the word "canon" to describe their list, so all doubt was not definitively removed. And I don't think you'll find many Orthodox today who give much credence to Florence.

I think that reference to the early church is confusing and off topic, and should be removed from the paragraph. Ceterum censeo mentionem ecclesiae primativae esse delendam. Rwflammang (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We were speaking about the period after the IV century, after the settlement of the issue of the canon. There cuold be sometime church-readings of not inspired books (also sometime some lives of saints), but widespread use in the West and in the East of deuterocanonical books is a strong proof of their consideration as inspired. By the way nor the East nor the West felt the need of a rigid boundary of the "canon" before this issue was raised by Luther: also the term of the "canon" was not defined. Even in Trent this issue was considered a issue of "canon law", not a theological issue. Anyway I agree that the reference to early church is vague and shall be changed. We could substitute the existing sentence This distinction had previously contributed to debate in the early Church about whether they should be read in the churches and thus be classified as canonical texts. with something like: The issue about whether they should be read in the churches and considered inspired texts was part of the larger debate about the Development of the Christian Biblical canon that occurred in the 4th and 5th century A ntv (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I like your proposal. Rwflammang (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerome and the Deuteros

In his prologues, Jerome describes a canon which excludes the deuteros, but he does not advocate for this canon. He never says it should be adopted. He just describes it in a matter of fact way. Although he called the deuteros apocrypha, he never said they should not be part of the Bible. On the contrary, he called them scripture in the same paragraph where he called them apocrypha. The idea that only canonical books should be in the Christian Bible does not pre-date the 17th century, when the first Christian bible without any apocrypha was printed. Rwflammang 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deuterocanonical not a theological term

Although coined by a theologian, as the article correctly states, the word deuterocanonical isn't actually a theological term, since it doesn't deal with the nature of God, which is one common definition. A minor point, but I think it's an important one, especially since this whole article involves fine shades of meaning.

--StephenMacmanus 02:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

References to Protestantism

I don't want to start an acrimonious debate between members of the various Christian denominations, but I do think that this article should specifically refer to the Protestant traditions when appropriate, since the contents of the Biblical canon is one of many topics disputed during the Reformation. In particular, I think the reference to "Some Christians" in the second paragraph is merely confusing, and hope that the explicit mentions of Protestantism clarifies the discussion of the Apocrypha. Comments? Suggestions?

--StephenMacmanus 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove "Anaginoskomena" section?

It seems to me that the term "anaginoskomena" is a synonym for the Catholic deuterocanon, and could be moved to that section, while the remaining information in this section is more appropriate for the existing article which discusses the formation of the biblical canon. I don't think it is related to the term "deuterocanonical" at all, but will not make such a significant change without feedback. Comments?

--StephenMacmanus 04:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with the second part of your comment, I disagree with the first. Anaginoskomena is not a synonym for deuterocanon, at least not in the RC sense of the word. Anaginoskomena includes 1 Esdras (aka 3 Esdras), Odes (arguably) with the Prayer of Manasses. Also maybe some other things I can't think of off the top of my head. Oh yeah, like 3 and 4 Maccabees. While anaginoskomena is very analagous to the RC idea of the deuterocanon (which causes a lot of confusion), it is distinct in the list of particular books. This list is (relatively) well defined for the RC deuterocanon, I'm not sure how well it is defined for the anaginoskomena.

There is more to the deuterocanon than the Septuagint issue. Some of the deuteros exist or existed in Aramaic and Hebrew versions. Some are or were found in other Greek versions (besides the LXX), namely Theodotion's, which most Greeks have used and still use for Daniel since the LXX Daniel is so bizarre. All this makes this subject tricky to describe. All the more so since the LXX issue was probably the dominant, though not the only one, in early discrepancies between canons. Rwflammang 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Additions to Jeremiah?

An anonymous editor has styled the book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as Additions to Jeremiah. When corrected, he reverted with this comment: (Baruch is an addition to Jeremiah in the Septuagint, whether it is "printed" separately, as it typically is in apocryphal collections, is irrelevant). This comment is erroneous in two ways.

Whether the book is printed separately is entirely relevent; it determines whether it is a separate book or an addition of Jeremiah.
It is not an addition to the Septuagint in any edition of the Septuagint I have seen, which includes Brenton, Swete, a Greek Othodox on-line edition, and this academic edition.

It is true that in ancient times Athanasius counted Baruch as part of Jeremiah, but the deuterocanon is a 17th century idea, not an ancient one. I suggest that this anonymous editor cite a contemporary source if he wants to call Baruch an addition to Jeremiah. Rwflammang 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's listed as an addition in Alfred Rahlfs critical edition which is the standard critical edition of the Septuagint. In addition: Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, chapter III, section 6:

"Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah were regarded by the Church as adjuncts of Jeremiah, much in the same way as Susanna and Bel were attached to Daniel. Baruch and the Epistle occur in lists which rigorously exclude the non-canonical books; they are cited as 'Jeremiah' (Iren. v. 35. I, Tert. scorp. 8, Clem. Alex. paed. i. 10, Cypr. testim. ii. 6); with Lamentations they form a kind of trilogy supplementary to the prophecy."

75.0.0.4 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Online: [1]

Thank you for posting your sources, and especially for making them so convenient to examine on-line. From what I understand, it seems that these two critical editions of the Septuagint are citing ancient sources. I only mentioned one ancient source in my criticism above, Athanasius, but what I said of him I will say also of Swete and Rahlfs: the incontrovertable fact that (some of? most of? all of?) the ancients counted Baruch as part of Jeremiah does not make it relevant to a discussion of a 16th century canon, or more to the point, "deutero" canon.

My problem with the modified list is that it does not add clarity, rather, it potentially confuses the reader. This is especially true if he clicks through the link to Additions to Jeremiah, he is brought to a section describing how much shorter the Septuagint version of Jeremiah is, rather than how much longer it is. A reader could even get the impression that it is the Hebrew which has the additions, rather than the Septuagint. (Although this might well be so, it is not the Hebrew that is in the deuterocanon.) This confusion is only compounded by the fact that a multitude of bibles published since Trent do not follow the practice of the ancients, but count Baruch as seperate book. The decree of Trent itself mentions Baruch by name, unlike the additions to Daniel or Esther.

While the ancient practice of counting Baruch as part of Jeremiah is interesting and worthy of inclusion in this article, the nature of a list is necessarily to give a brief run down of only the most pertinent points. I would favor moving the remark about Additions to Jeremiah out of the list and into the body of the text, or making it secondary, like so:

Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (appended to Jeremiah in manuscripts of the Septuagint)

I would recomend against linking to the section Additions to Jeremiah until its content sheds light on this article. Rwflammang 16:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you bring up Trent, it specifically says: "Ieremias cum Baruch" (Jeremiah with Baruch).75.15.207.171 17:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the latest edits. Rwflammang 18:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The case against the Apocrypha is overstated

I have been working parts of Michael Barber's blog entry into the Development of the Old Testament canon article. However, I am concerned that Barber's position is only one POV and is a minority viewpoint. I wanted to ask others for their opinion regarding this material and how best to present it in an NPOV way. Among other questions, I'm wondering if this material should be presented in the Development of the Old Testament canon article or in the Deuterocanonical books article.

--Richard 08:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Barber's purpose in writing the entry is clearly polemical, and some of his arguments seem to be reaching, for instance his discussion of the textual variation in the Qumran scrolls is off-topic. He seems to be using it only as a stick to beat his unnamed opponents, presumably Jews and Protestants. He does however seem to be very familiar with some good secondary sources, and his blog post could profitably be used as a launch-pad for further research.

Rwflammang 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, good. But my question is... have I shifted the NPOV balance too far in his direction in the Development of the Old Testament canon article? If so, how do we shift it back while still presenting his POV? --Richard 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He got at least one point definitely wrong though: his remarkable assertion that the word "canon" was not coined till the 18th century. As early as the fourth century the Latin word canon and its adjective canonicus (canonical) were used to refer to a subset of scripture by St. Jerome in his prologues [2]. For instance he lists some books of the Bible that "are not in the canon", non sunt in canone. In describing Tobit, he says that it is "against their [the Pharisees'] canon", contra suum canonem. He says the four gospels are first in canone. He says the Church does not receive the apocrypha "among the canonical writings", inter canonicas scripturas.

Likewise, the Council of Carthage (also 4th century) says that, "beyond the canonical scriptures let nothing be read in church under the name 'Holy Scripture'", praeter scripturas canonicas nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. It then proceeds to name the canonical books, "The canonical books are ...", Sunt autem canonicae scripturae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Iesu Nave, Iudicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quatuor, Paralipomenon libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque, duodecim libri Prophetarum, Esaias, Ieremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Iudith, Hester, Hesdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti: Evangeliorum libri quatuor, Actus Apostolorum liber unus, Pauli Apostoli epistolae tredecim, eiusdem ad Hebraeos una, Petri duae, Ioannis tres, Iacobi una, Iudae una, Apocalypsis Joannis. See Councils of Carthage for a translation and reference.

Rwflammang 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I don't think I put that assertion in the Development of the Old Testament canon article, though. Am I wrong? --Richard 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Amharic Bible

I don't doubt that the Amharic Bible contains lots of books not found in western bibles, but I question whether that means these books are canonical. After all, the Clementine Vulgate, the official bible of the RC Church, contains 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, and the RC Church does not count them in the canon. They are not "deuterocanonical", but apocryphal. Does anyone have a reference to a council or a magisterial document that says that these books are canonical? It seems to me the article is confusing "apocryphal" with "deuterocanonical", which is, alas, a common error. Rwflammang 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Catholic section

The way it's worded seems to imply that the deuterocanonical books weren't accepted until around the council of trent, but in reality, they were accepted since the late 300's to early 400's - determined in a Catholic council whose name I can't remember off the top of my head. I was going to fix this, however, I find myself at a loss as to how to fix it without reworking the whole section. Does anyone have any suggestions?Farsight001 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As it stands now, the article does mention that Trent implicitly confirmed the canons of various regional synods from the 4th and 5th centuries. We could also mention the ecumenical Council of Florence in the middle ages, and no doubt there are others that could be mentioned as well. But when you edit this paragraph, be careful of these points:

- Don't use the word deuterocanonical anachronistically. It was not coined until the 16th century; it describes a 16th century issue that is still with us today.
- Don't fall into the trap of thinking that all catholics everywhere agreed on the canon before Florence, and even Florence left a bit of a loop-hole that was not closed until Trent. Jerome's prefaces were a standard feature of Latin bibles for centuries, and in those prefaces he explicitly describes some of the deuterocanonical books as being "not in the canon". It's safe to say that your typical western scholar would be more likely to be familiar with Jerome's prologues than with the canons of the Councils of Carthage.

Rwflammang (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage

I read this-"by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism" I am wondering if it is nessecary to put "Catholicism" instead of Christianity; because being Catholic is not a different religion, but merely a sect of the Christian prostetant church.

Crazyhistory (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what advantage obscuring Bernard's Catholicism would bring to the article. Especially to an article whose main importance is to understanding a sore subject in modern Catholic-Protestant polemics. Rwflammang (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The term is basically a Catholic one, so it seems reasonable to mention that its originator was one. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Comment in Spanish by RubensCatholicus

Para el que sepa Español: En el artículo se dice que el reconocimiento oficial de la canonicidad de los libros deuterocanónicos fuen el concilio de Florencia y que finalmente se confirmó en Trento, esto es un barbarismo. Debe leerse el artículo en Español que está mucho mejor argumentado. El reconocimiento general y oficial de la Iglesia Católica sobre la canonicidad de estos libros data del siglo III y IV, en los Concilios de Hipona, Cartago, Decreto de Dámaso, Sínodo Romano, Canon Romano de Inocencio I, Canon de San Gelasio, así como en lo más antiguos códices griegos. La sección está en un despiste total. Re-edítese! Pax et Bonum!-- RubensCatholicus (Hic et Nunc) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation of entry by RubensCatholicus

According to this article, the formal recognition of the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books occurred in the Council of Florence and was later confirmed by the Council of Trent. This is incorrect. The article in the Spanish Wikipedia [3] is far better and is well argued. The general recognition and the formal recognition of the canonicity of these books, by the Catholic Church, dates from the third and fourth centuries. It was defined by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, the decree of Damasus, the Council of Rome, the decree of Pope Innocent I, the canon of Saint Gelasius as well as the earliest Greek codices. This Section is in total confusion. Please revise it. Peace and best wishes! -- RubensCatholicus (Hic et Nunc) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

translation by ClemMcGann (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)