# Scripture proofs from Deuterocanonical books in Ursinus?



## a mere housewife (Nov 22, 2009)

I noticed that Ursinus speaks of 'Scripture' and proceeds to give a reference from Wisdom with other Scripture, and then a few paragraphs later gives one from Ecclesiasticus. (This is in the section on 'The Causes of Sin' under 'Of Sin in General' in his commentary on the Heidelberg catechism -- point 3, that God is not the author of sin.) Could someone familiar with the standing of these books and the usage of them at the time explain? Thank you. 

(I am sorry if this has been dealt with previously: I tried to do a search, but it pulled up so many threads not relating to the question, that I couldn't wade through them. Also, I'm unsure quite what forum this should go in, and if this isn't correct, I'd be very grateful if someone would refile it.)


----------



## Poimen (Nov 22, 2009)

Heidi:

My guess is that he was taking the advice of the *Belgic Confession, Article 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books*



> The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 22, 2009)

Thank you Rev. Kok. Ruben also explained that as Ursinus' copy of the Scriptures would have included these books, and this is not a section dealing with the canon, one must read it in light of whatever clearer statements he made on the issue.

-----Added 11/22/2009 at 03:31:22 EST-----

Just a follow up question: obviously there isn't a section on Scripture in this _Commentary _I am reading: where does Ursinus deal with the canon of Scripture, and would it be available online at all for me to reference -- I'm certain of course that he was a Protestant on the issue, but I was looking for his views in the _Commentary_ earlier and couldn't find them?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Nov 22, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Just a follow up question: obviously there isn't a section on Scripture in this _Commentary _I am reading: where does Ursinus deal with the canon of Scripture, and would it be available online at all for me to reference -- I'm certain of course that he was a Protestant on the issue, but I was looking for his views in the _Commentary_ earlier and couldn't find them?



Ursinus deals with Scripture in his Loci Theologici, in Volume 1 of his Opera Theologica. Unfortunately, I don't think it's available online yet (Volume 3 recently surfaced though) and if it was online, it's in Latin so I'm not sure if that would be helpful for you. 

Also, you might be interested to know that the earliest editions of the Belgic Confession also contained proof texts from the Apocrypha. In fact, Guido de Bres (the author of the Confession) referred occasionally to them throughout his writings. I hope to publish a short study on this in the near future.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 22, 2009)

Well, I know how to say, 'Even you, Brutus?' in Latin: but I'm not sure how many times that phrase crops in in a theological work of reference. Thanks very much for the information. That's very interesting, about the apocrypha being used in the earliest editions of the Belgic Confession. Would the change have anything to do with the Council of Trent setting those on par with canonical books -- perhaps making us more wary of referencing them at all?


----------



## DTK (Nov 22, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> I noticed that Ursinus speaks of 'Scripture' and proceeds to give a reference from Wisdom with other Scripture, and then a few paragraphs later gives one from Ecclesiasticus. ...Could someone familiar with the standing of these books and the usage of them at the time explain?


I have little to add other than the following distinction, pointed out by one of Ursinus' contemporaries...



> *Whitaker (1547-1595):* “To be _canonical scripture_” is one thing, and “to be counted in the number of _sacred scripture_” is another thing. For those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And that this was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from Jerome’s own words in the preface to the Proverbs. “The church,” says he, “reads this book, but does not receive it amongst the canonical scriptures” Although, therefore, this book be read, and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not received amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words; but this he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments: first, because the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirming anything which may be called in question : secondly, because the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it grossly corrupted and depraved. For which reason Jerome, in translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact meaning of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found uncorrupted in the Chaldee . Now, however, even those Chaldee copies themselves have perished; and the Greek ones differ widely from Jerome’s version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story of Judith, a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it canonical. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 82-83.



DTK


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 22, 2009)

DTK said:


> > *Whitaker (1547-1595):* “To be _canonical scripture_” is one thing, and “to be counted in the number of _sacred scripture_” is another thing. For those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And that this was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from Jerome’s own words in the preface to the Proverbs. “The church,” says he, “reads this book, but does not receive it amongst the canonical scriptures” Although, therefore, this book be read, and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not received amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words; but this he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments: first, because the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirming anything which may be called in question : secondly, because the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it grossly corrupted and depraved. For which reason Jerome, in translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact meaning of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found uncorrupted in the Chaldee . Now, however, even those Chaldee copies themselves have perished; and the Greek ones differ widely from Jerome’s version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story of Judith, a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it canonical. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 82-83.
> 
> 
> 
> DTK



I'm a bit confused. Is Whitaker saying that Jerome believes that the book of _Proverbs_ is not canonical or is it _Judith_ that Jerome is referring to?


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 22, 2009)

DTK said:


> > *Whitaker (1547-1595):* “To be _canonical scripture_” is one thing, and “to be counted in the number of _sacred scripture_” is another thing. For those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And that this was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from Jerome’s own words in the preface to the Proverbs. “The church,” says he, “reads this book, but does not receive it amongst the canonical scriptures” Although, therefore, this book be read, and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not received amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words; but this he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments: first, because the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirming anything which may be called in question : secondly, because the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it grossly corrupted and depraved. For which reason Jerome, in translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact meaning of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found uncorrupted in the Chaldee . Now, however, even those Chaldee copies themselves have perished; and the Greek ones differ widely from Jerome’s version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story of Judith, a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it canonical. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 82-83.
> 
> 
> DTK



Thank you, Rev. King; that's very helpful.


----------



## DTK (Nov 22, 2009)

Chippy said:


> I'm a bit confused. Is Whitaker saying that Jerome believes that the book of _Proverbs_ is not canonical or is it _Judith_ that Jerome is referring to?



I suppose I should have provided more context for the quote; Jerome was referring to the book of Judith...

*Whitaker (1547-1595):* Our adversaries snatch up an argument from Jerome in favour of this book, which goes under the name of *Judith*. For Jerome tells us, in the preface to *the book of Judith*, that this book was counted in the sacred scriptures by the Nicene synod. Therefore, say they, Jerome himself testifies that this book at least is canonical. But this testimony injures our opponents’ cause more than it helps it. For first, if that synod received this book into the number of the sacred scriptures, it affected those others, which it omitted, with no slight prejudice. For if, as these men will have it, it determined this book to be canonical, why did it not comprehend the others also in the same decree, if they be really canonical?
Secondly, Jerome s words are, “We read that the synod of Nice counted this book in the number of sacred scriptures .” But where this is read, he tells us not. And if the Nicene synod had determined the canonicity of this book, the council of Laodicea, which was held a short time after that of Nice, would not have left it in the Apocrypha. And Erasmus hath rightly noted, that Jerome does not himself affirm that this book was counted sacred scripture by the council of Nice.
Thirdly, “To be _canonical scripture_” is one thing, and “to be counted in the number of _sacred scripture_” is another thing. For those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And that this was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from Jerome’s own words in the preface to the Proverbs. “The church,” says he, “reads this book *[i.e., the book of Judith - my note]*, but does not receive it amongst the canonical scriptures” Although, therefore, this book be read, and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not received amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words; but this he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments: first, because the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirming anything which may be called in question : secondly, because the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it grossly corrupted and depraved. For which reason Jerome, in translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact meaning of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found uncorrupted in the Chaldee . Now, however, even those Chaldee copies themselves have perished; and the Greek ones differ widely from Jerome’s version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story of Judith, a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it canonical. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists_, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 82-83.

My apologies for misleading you.

As an aside concerning the Council of Nicea, Whitaker was responding to the notion some have entertained regarding a canonical list of books being established by it. He makes it clear that this notion is without proof.

DTK


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 22, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Just a follow up question: obviously there isn't a section on Scripture in this _Commentary _I am reading: where does Ursinus deal with the canon of Scripture, and would it be available online at all for me to reference -- I'm certain of course that he was a Protestant on the issue, but I was looking for his views in the _Commentary_ earlier and couldn't find them?



Heidi, Wes Bredenhof referred you to the location itself (his _Loci Theologici_); but since it's pretty hard to come by, I thought I would give you just a quick outline of his treatment of scripture therein.

The first two sections deal with what it is that the scriptures teach, and how the religion of the scriptures differs from other religions: as in his Commentary on the Catechism, he primarily divides the scriptures into Law and Gospel, and assigns all of scriptural teaching to one of these categories.

After this, he deals with Why Scripture is to be received, wherein he also deals with Canonicity (though he does not much address the Apocrypha). He follows the standard Protestant explanation that the testimony of man or of the church cannot be the cause for acceptance of scripture, but based upon the fact that they come from God and upon His own testimony: he again follows the standard pattern and notes both the Subjective testimony (the Spirit of God testifying to the heart that this is the Word of God), and the Objective/empirical testimonies (The testimonies found in scripture itself, the empirical, historical and miraculous proofs, etc.). When he address the Papist objections to this, he addresses the cavil that the church is necessary to know which books are Canonical and which are not. Here he brings in the Apocrypha, and argues that the same light and authority are not found in these as in the other Canonical books (which can be known clearly by the very testimony of scripture -- e.g., by the Lord or Apostles quoting them, etc.), and that they lack divine testimony, among other arguments. His point, however, is not here to address the Apocryphal works in themselves, but to note that the sure ground of knowing Canonical books belongs not to the Church, but to scripture itself.

Finally, after this lengthy treatment, he concludes the locus on Scripture by discussing traditions, and whether anything apart from scripture can be a rule of faith.

Hope that helps a bit! I probably left some things out. It's been a while since I studied this portion of his work and I'm mostly going by memory right now.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 22, 2009)

> I probably left some things out. It's been a while since I studied this portion of his work and I'm mostly going by memory right now.



I think you left out the part about 'Even you, Brutus' . 

That's splendid, thanks so much.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Nov 23, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Well, I know how to say, 'Even you, Brutus?' in Latin: but I'm not sure how many times that phrase crops in in a theological work of reference. Thanks very much for the information. That's very interesting, about the apocrypha being used in the earliest editions of the Belgic Confession. Would the change have anything to do with the Council of Trent setting those on par with canonical books -- perhaps making us more wary of referencing them at all?



Hi again,

No, I'm not sure it has anything to do with Trent, since Trent's decision on the canon was in 1546. Guido de Bres was writing in the 1550s and 1560s. He surely knew about Trent, but continued to reference the apocrypha. 

My guess is that, at least among the Reformed on the continent, the change probably takes place after Dort. The Synod of Dort commissioned a Bible translation (Staten Vertaling) which was to include the apocrypha, albeit in smaller print and set off from the main text with different pagination. There was also to be a preface warning readers against the errors found in these writings. As far as I know, the earliest editions of the Staten Vertaling contained the apocrypha, but eventually printers left them out (probably because of the hassle in setting it up so differently from the rest of the text).


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 23, 2009)

Thanks very much, Mr. Bredenhof: that's extremely interesting. I probably didn't phrase my question very well -- I meant not so much whether an immediate reaction took place, but whether a reaction building over time would have crystallised to the point where reformed people were less willing to reference the Apocrypha than they had been previously. In this case, was the Staten Vertaling edition with its warnings something of a reaction against the status Trent had given to the Apocrypha -- so the changes it precipitated were also then building on that reaction? 

I would like to understand better why suddenly reformed people became wary of referencing something that had not been considered on a par with canonical books, but had always been considered useful. It _seems_ like the Council of Trent is the logical event to have precipitated such a change, by announcing that these other books were indeed, on the same par?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 23, 2009)

Look at _PRRD_, v.2, section 6. It's on the bottom shelf, and I believe it's page 360.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 23, 2009)

Your posts are always so useful.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 23, 2009)

You could also look in the brand-new Rollock at his _Treatise on Effectual Calling_ which speaks about the canon for some reason. The references are in _PRRD_.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 23, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Look at _PRRD_, v.2, section 6. It's on the bottom shelf, and I believe it's page 360.



It's page 371. I think you need more vitamins.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 23, 2009)

Does section 6 start on p.371, or is that where it begins to talk about the apocrypha? Because if section 6 starts on p.360 I'm all right and you are convicted of being a vitamin tyrant.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 23, 2009)

BWAHAHAHAHA! The bat chapstick cannot protect you! Due to being bitten by a radioactive vitamin, I can shoot vitamins out my fists!

No section 6 starts on page 371.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 23, 2009)

I'm hesitant to thank you for such a useful post, because it would make it seem like your post was *only* as useful as all the other ones. But as usual, you are in a class of your own.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 23, 2009)

Then why have you not started a vitamin business? You could point out that all the vitamins are organic and home-grown.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 23, 2009)

I think if you want to discuss that, we should start another topic.


----------

