Talk:Deuterocanonical books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deuterocanonical means SecondCanonical - The opposite of what catholics mean. Rename Article?[edit]

The word deuterocanonical is from Greek deuteros meaning second. It means second canon. Catholics claim that the christian canon included the deuterocanonical books even before the Protestant Reformation. That they are in the original canon, and that Martin Luther just removed them in the Reformation.
Are they sure they want to use this word when it's a tricky way of saying the canon Catholics tacked on later?
The title deuterocanon was probably either coin by Protestants or ignorant Catholics.
Perhaps when people type in deuterocanonical it should just be a redirection to this article. The article should be renamed Catholic Canon not Included in Protestant Canon? (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
No, that rename is not acceptable and is blatantly POV. It also ignores the fact that most of these books predate the Catholic Church, and the fact that they have always used by various Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. 'Deuterocanonical books', while it does indeed mean 'second canon', is the most common name that is actually used for them per our naming conventions. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
What about making the current title redirect to this content and call it Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Canon not Included in Protestant Canon. I know it's long but it's less false. And we can accept canon that came before Christ if we want to. ThePepel-Eterni (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I think that proposal also fails our naming conventions for going with the most widely used term. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't confuse the etymology of the term with its meaning. When the term was coined by Sixtus of Sienna it meant the books of the Old Testament considered canonical by the council of Trent but not considered canonical by Jews, which is the exact same thing it means today. You can criticize Sixtus' coinage all you want, but you can't say that the term hasn't been widely adopted.
I would caution against using the term anachronistically in an encyclopedia article, however common it may be on polemical websites. It is a post-Tridentine term that refers to a post-Tridentine concept. Rwflammang (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose to rename. The general reader of Wikipedia arrives to this Article because he had known about "deuterocanical" but he doesn't know what exactly it means. For this reason we shall leave this title. There are many other articles about the canon. This article to explain what is the term "deuterocanonical" used for, its history, and briefly the different POVs about the inclusion of such books.A ntv (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Article mis-states Eastern Orthodox position[edit]

I am led to believe that the following statement:

When Orthodox theologians use the term "deuterocanonical," it is important to note that the meaning is not identical to the Roman Catholic usage. In Orthodox Christianity, deuterocanonical means that a book is part of the corpus of the Old Testament (i.e. is read during the services) but has secondary authority. In other words, deutero (second) applies to authority or witnessing power, whereas in Roman Catholicism, deutero applies to chronology (the fact that these books were confirmed later), not to authority.

Is not one which many Eastern Orthodox would agree with. See Joel Kalvesmaki, "All Scripture Is Inspired by God: Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon", see also S. T. Kimbrough, Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice (2005), p. 23 (which we already cite.) I am left with the impression that Fr. Laurent's views are ones that many Eastern Orthodox would disagree with. I'm hesitant about relying on this very brief "Q&A"-style page for anything unless it can be confirmed by a more serious source. ZackMartin (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this notion was also inserted in the lede paragraph of Eastern Orthodox Church in my memory, and I remember thinking that it was suspect at the time, but it was added with a reference I could not check: 'Pomazansky, Michael, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, pp. 33-34', so I permitted the edit to stand. The Kimbrough reference given directly afterwards refutes this idea neatly, though. Elizium23 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Lutheranism, Luther Bible[edit]

Should there not be some discussion in the article of the Lutheran position on these writings? Luther's German translation of the Bible was the first to separate them from the books that are undisputedly canonical and assign them a special position in the book. He strongly recommended that they be read by Christians and therefore made sure that they were printed in the Bibles produced under his supervision. The current article says absolutely nothing about this pivotal Protestant reformer and the churchly tradition that grew out of his attempts to reform the Western church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8000:AC:42E:3EFD:8D43:D093 (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Luther merely used the same OT books that the Jews had canonized in the first or second century. He was not aware that a measurable amount of the New Testament is derived from these now-jettisoned books. We now have the Dead Sea Scrolls which confirm usage at that time. Luther was merely trying to "make a statement" that would exclude Rome. In retrospect, it was the wrong choice. This is why those books are included as "Apocrypha" in most Protestant Bibles - because they are really canonical from a Christian pov. Jesus and his apostles and later disciples used these books. From a Christian pov, they were wrongly excluded.
In particular, Maccabees was thrown out by the Jews because it clearly envisions an afterlife, which the Pharisees had agreed to, but after the subsequent contention with the Christian Church, wished to disavow. Student7 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Your first paragraph takes no account of the fact that in Luther's day, the canon he proposed was quite acceptable to many Roman Catholics, including at least one cardinal. Before the Council of Trent, many canon lists in standard Catholic texts excluded the deuterocanonical books. In the documents formalizing Luther's break with Rome, neither he nor any Catholic prelate mentioned his canon as an issue, because it wasn't one before Trent.
Your second paragraph is pure speculation. In fact, there are many apocrypha that were not included in the Jewish "canon", despite saying nothing about the afterlife disagreeable to Pharisees. The most likely reason for the exclusion of the deuterocanonical books from the Tanakh is that they were never widely considered critical outside of Hellenistic circles.
As for mentioning Martin Luther in the article, I have no objection in principle, but it is hard to see his relevance here since he died before the Tridentine canons were promulgated.
Rwflammang (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It was always Seputuagint#Christian_use, right? Until the Reformation. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's rather more complicated than that. It is certainly true that all Christian bibles before the reformation (and for quite a while after the reformation) included the books that would later be called (or were already called) "deuterocanonical". But although they were in the bibles, they were not always called "canonical". After all, a bible is not a canon, and a canon is not a bible. What they were almost universally called, whether considered canonical or not, is apocrypha. Rwflammang (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede is buried[edit]

There has been a lot of cruft inserted into this article over the years, and it seems to have obscured the heart of this article, which is the list of the deuterocanonical books. Is there some reason why this cannot be restored to near the top of the article, where the information will be easier to find?

Since the concept of deuterocanonical is a Roman Catholic one, is there some reason why the Roman Catholic position is spelled out after the Jewish position section, after the history section, and after the Septuagint section? Doesn't this obscure the relevant matter about these books, rather than help explicate it?

I propose that the basic facts of the matter come up near the beginning, and the historical background and reaction from other religions follow. Rwflammang (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose rewrite of Lede[edit]

'Deuterocanonical books' is a 16th century Roman Catholic coinage, arising in connection with the Council of Trent. It stands specifically for those Old Testament books and passages that were accepted as canonical by that Council, but were not in the Hebrew Bible. The term was subsequently taken up by a number of other churches to denote their own particular lists of canonical O.T. Books outside the Hebrew canon; none of which correspond to that adopted at Trent; just as the 1546 Trent list does not correspond to the list of 'Ecclesiastical books' recognised by Rufinus and Augustine, or to any corresponding list formulated by authoritative councils and synods of the Latin church. As I read it, the lede as phrased now implies that the 1546 'dueterocanon' represented a fixed list of books recognised as canonical from antiquity. Which may well be what some of the Fathers at Trent believed, but more recent scholarship does not support them. I propose rewriting the lede para to make this point clear; with the counterpart usages of Eastern, Ethiopic and sundry Protestant churces clarified in a second par. Is this acceptable to other editors? TomHennell (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You say: "Which may well be what some of the Fathers at Trent believed, but more recent scholarship does not support them." Who are they?, do recent Protestants and Jews have more authority than councils theologians? Jews and Protestants have no authority over the biblical canon. For Jews all New Testament books are not canonical.Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I am chiefly relying on Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, both his article in Revue Benedictine (2005) 'Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et réintégration' and his chapter in Volume II of the New Cambridge History of the Bible 'The Latin Bible, c. 600 to c. 900'. Plus Edmon Gallagher and John Meade; 'The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity' OUP 2017. Bogaert is beyond question the most notable current scholar in this particular field. As he is a Benedictine monk and Professor emeritus at a leading Catholic university, I doubt whether Bogaert is either a Protestant or a Jew. Bogaert's particular point is that the category of 'deuterocanonical' books is anachronistic when applied to the 5th/6th century; it is essentially a 16th century term used by the Fathers at Trent to designate a sub-set of the books and passages found in various versions of the Christian Old Testament but not in the canonical Hebrew Bible; and which would have been termed 'ecclesiastical' in the earlier period. But the exact list of deuterocanonical books adopted at Trent does not correspond with any actual list from antiquity. This article (perhaps because it has become infested with citations from controversial contributions in a Protestant/Catholic debate), has tended to obscure this basic observations. It is anachronistic to refer to any list from antiquity as 'the dueterocanonical books' as the contents of such a list varied greatly one synod or authority to another; and even when titles on the list was the same, it was by no means certain that the same texts were being understood as being denoted by those titles. For instance, in Athanasius's canon list the 'two books of Esdras' are noted - corresponding to Greek Esdras and canonical Ezra-Nehemiah; but at Trent the phrase 'two books of Ezra is understood as denoting Ezra and Nehemiah as separate books. TomHennell (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deuterocanonical books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Philip Schaff; propose remove references.[edit]

Arrticle at present quotes Philip Schaff extensively; but I propose to remove these. Schaff's scholarship is now 150 years old; and as a Victorian High Calvinist, not really in tune with what is essentially a 16th century Catholic discourse. I suggest that Lee Mcdonald's recent publications - especially 'The Canon Debate' (2002); and 'The Formation of the Bible' (2012) are better representations of current notable scholarship. TomHennell (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)