66 vs. 73

[Timonator348]

I’ve been frustrated in almost all conversations with Protestant acquaintences because naturally we go largely by the Bible but it seems like our conversations are crippled before they get off the ground because they are not using a full Bible, first of all, and sometimes iffy translations, second of all. I’d like to get some comments from former Protestant converts to Catholicism as to what sold the fact that the Bible has 73 books and not 66 as seems to be the norm in America. This seems to be one of the major sticking points between protestants and Catholics and I’d like help on overcoming it.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Well, I’m not a convert yet, but what got me was Church Tradition (i.e Holy Tradition). First, you have to establish that Tradition is important, and that Sola Scriptura is false (there are Bible verses that show that, such as 1 Timothy 3:15). Then, all you have to do is point them to all of the Councils around 400 A.D that show the canon of the Bible. Also that the Latin Vulgate used for over 1000 years had all the deuterocanonical books in it. Of course, if they are the fundamentalist type, you might have to explain how the Church was never over come.

 

[graceandglory]

I’ve been frustrated in almost all conversations with Protestant acquaintences because naturally we go largely by the Bible but it seems like our conversations are crippled before they get off the ground because they are not using a full Bible, first of all, and sometimes iffy translations, second of all. I’d like to get some comments from former Protestant converts to Catholicism as to what sold the fact that the Bible has 73 books and not 66 as seems to be the norm in America. This seems to be one of the major sticking points between protestants and Catholics and I’d like help on overcoming it.

History.
As a cradle Catholic, who became an evangelical for 18 years, I spent a lot of time perusing protestant theories of the Catholic books. They simply did not have the history correct. It takes a bit longer to study the history but truth is truth. And it all still comes back to the Magisterium and who holds the keys. Does it make a difference in my f aith? Not so much, it’s not lilke there is much in the missing books that is necessary for salvation, or even differs between orthodox protestant belief and Catholic belief. We hardly read from those books. I read them as an evangelical, and didn’t have any problems with what was in there. They don’t define Catholicism. I don’t look to Maccabees for a proof-text for “praying for the dead.” The seven books are there, they are Catholic, and they are my canon.

 

[Khalid]

73, because the Bible Jesus and the apostles used (the LXX) contained the 46 (Old Testament) books we have today, plus the possible addition of four others and one poem, which may have been (were likely) added at a later date. (The NT didn’t exist yet, obviously.)

These are the third and fourth books of Maccabees, the Psalms of Solomon, 3 Esdras/Esdras A/1 Esdras, etc. (the naming conventions for the various books of Esdras/Ezra, including Nehemiah, are very tricky and inconsistent from one edition to the next), and the Prayer of Manasseh. These books, excepting the Psalms of Solomon and 4 Maccabees, are considered canonical by the Orthodox, although the Orthodox often have 4 Maccabees in an appendix to their Bible, just as the Vulgate has 3 and 4 Esdras (which was not in the LXX) in an appendix. 3 Esdras is nothing but a combination of the books of Ezra and the beginning of Nehemiah, with a discourse in the court of Darius at one point that’s not in canonical Ezra.

Sola scriptura runs in to some major problems when the entire issue of “canon” is brought up: is it “all scripture is inspired by God”, or “all scripture that is inspired by God”? Both are valid translations of the Greek: what tells us what is inspired? The Church. Some Protestants say the OT canon is verified by the NT, but that leaves two problems: the NT canon is attested by no other scripture, so what verifies it? and the book of Jude also quotes 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses verbatim, so, by sola scripturists’ reasoning, why aren’t 1 En and AsnMos in the OT? The NT also quotes or alludes to several other of the Deuterocanonical books, and most of the quotes of the OT in the NT are from the Septuagint (that is, the LXX): when they don’t match the OT in your Bible, that’s because your Bible’s OT was translated from the corrupted medieval Masoretic text, carefully combed and re-interpreted by the Rabbinical Jews so as to foreclose on many prophetic and messianic interpretations (such as the re-defining of the word “almah” to mean “young woman” so common in medieval midrash, with no basis in philology). One of the only good features of the NAB is the fact that it points out when an NT reference to the OT is necessarily from the LXX, i.e. when the modern Masoretic text and the LXX are divergent, in the cross-references (although the NAB and NABRE Old Testaments are a horrible monument to anti-faithful, hyper-skeptical, tendentious-bordering-on-dishonest scholarship, so don’t expect to find those cross referenced passages actually in the NAB/RE OT, but you can find them in the NETS or any other LXX).

So on and so forth, it doesn’t take a genius to see half a dozen defeaters of sola scriptura.

 

[KevinAK]

Jesus and the apostles used the same OT we use. The NT hadn’t been written yet.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Jesus and the apostles used the same OT we use. The NT hadn’t been written yet.

Yes, the Christians used the Septuagint because the majority of references in the NT to the OT are in fact referencing the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures that includes the deuterocanonicals.

How did the Old Testament canon develop?
youtube.com/watch?v=dF5NYPENhp4&feature=relmfu

 

[fisherman_carl]

if one accepts the list of books in the bible as in infallible then don’t you need the Church itself to be infallible in order to make such a declaration? Is not someone else that is infallible required in order to declare that the bible itself is infallible? Otherwise, how would we know? You can’t have an infallible bible without an infallible Church. That is the Church of Jesus and the apostles and their successors, which is guarded from error in faith and morals (Mt 16:18-19).

 

[bogeydogg]

Those who argue for 66 (I am not in this group) would argue that not that the canon was fallible but whether the books in question are canon. Then they will argue that Jewish councils in the late first early second century excluded these books. But why should we argue that a group of men who rejected the Christian faith should have influence over us?

The second point is the Masoritic Texts from which most Hebrew translations of the OT are taken, but considering that these were compiled from the late 6th-10th cent AD by those who have rejected the Christian faith then why should we care. Also the MT has translation errors such as denying that Psalm 21 speaks about the piercing of crucifixion by altering the words means with vowel points. How do we know these are corrupted? Because the LXX tells us so because the Greek is different and older than the Hebrew.

Third is history the LXX was compiled from 4th-2nd century BC so is far older than MT and we know that great churchmen such as Augustine argued strongly for the LXX being the authentic text because it was most reliable and used by the Apostles in their quotations.

Forth is the Apostolic witness. When the Apostels quoted scripture they used the LXX. We know this because of syntax differences between the NT and the MT. For a long time there was argument that the NT quotations were corruptions and that the verses they quoted were glosses to argue for Jesus as Messiah, but the Dead Sea Scrolls contained an intact scroll of Isaiah including all of the NT quotations about Messiah. That scroll is dated 200BC so could not possibly be a post Christian gloss.

In my mind knowing that we should be utterly indifferent to the MT and those arguments against the 73.

After that some will argue these books contain errant teaching. I suppose they must mean things like

Wisdom 2:10 10 Let us oppress the poor just man, and not spare the widow, nor honur the ancient grey hairs of the aged. 11 But let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble, is found to be nothing worth. 12 Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

Of course they will say this is not what they had in mind and were referring more to historical difficulties for example in the books of Judith or Maccabees. But to this I answer they will accept that a fish swallowed Jonah, a virgin gave birth and a man got up out of the grave, but kick up a fuss about whether or not the king of Assyria was ever named Nebuchadnezzar.

Everyone acknowledges that there are some historical paradoxes in the OT in the histories but among the 66 we are supposed to ignore these while complaining about 73. That sounds like special pleading to me and I don’t pay any attention to it at all.

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

I would think that the 66 books which Protestants use should have enough in them to defend the Catholic faith effectively.

It would not deter me in the least to restric myself to the 66 book Protestant bible for the purpose of defending Catholic doctrine.

-Tim-

 

[Khalid]

Of course not, the 66-book canon can always be used to prove Catholic doctrine, because Catholic doctrine on the whole is argued out of the universal 27-book NT canon, not the variable OT canons. Granted, some OT passages (2 Macc 12) give additional support to specific doctrines, but in general, the OT supports those doctrines that are held by all who profess Nicene Christianity, and are not a point of contention.

I can’t see how someone can impugn the historical reliability of 1 Maccabees and accept that of Kings or Chronicles: 1 Maccabees is likely the most literally historically reliable book in the Bible, and the closest to what we today would call history, although it is similar to the other historians (Livy, etc.), named Annalists, working around the same time.

If someone were to complain about Judith, while accepting Esther, based on historical argumentation… what sophistry! I would think that man to be none other than David Hume!

 

[bogeydogg]

Of course not, the 66-book canon can always be used to prove Catholic doctrine, because Catholic doctrine on the whole is argued out of the universal 27-book NT canon, not the variable OT canons. Granted, some OT passages (2 Macc 12) give additional support to specific doctrines, but in general, the OT supports those doctrines that are held by all who profess Nicene Christianity, and are not a point of contention.

I can’t see how someone can impugn the historical reliability of 1 Maccabees and accept that of Kings or Chronicles: 1 Maccabees is likely the most literally historically reliable book in the Bible, and the closest to what we today would call history, although it is similar to the other historians (Livy, etc.), named Annalists, working around the same time.

If someone were to complain about Judith, while accepting Esther, based on historical argumentation… what sophistry! I would think that man to be none other than David Hume!

Well said:thumbsup:

 

[Timonator348]

Thanks for the great responses. I guess my next question is how do we overcome the anti-Catholic Bible bias? I think it’s commonplace, at least in America, that the Bible most people have access to or get by default is the 66 booked version. Do the seven lacking books make that big of a difference? I’m willing to say yes or the “reformers” never would have removed them in the first place.

 

[I_Thirst]

Thanks for the great responses. I guess my next question is how do we overcome the anti-Catholic Bible bias? I think it’s commonplace, at least in America, that the Bible most people have access to or get by default is the 66 booked version. Do the seven lacking books make that big of a difference? I’m willing to say yes or the “reformers” never would have removed them in the first place.

The question that could be asked is, by what authority did Martin Luther remove those seven books? Does each one of us have the same authority to remove books from the Bible? Does that authority supercede the traditional canon and authority before Luther?

I’ve also heard that Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation. I’m not sure what his reasoning was for keeping them in.

As a side note, I’ve heard Luther referred to as a 16th century Marcion.

 

[Khalid]

He wanted to remove (definitely) James, Jude, Revelation, Hebrews, (possibly) 2 Peter, and I think one other book (3 John?), because they didn’t have “the character of the gospel message” (i.e. salvation by faith alone through grace alone through Christ alone) in them, in his opinion. To this day, those books are printed in a separate section after the New Testament (like the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles) in German Protestant Bibles.

Edit:

bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

I was wrong about 2 Peter. He didn’t remove it, even though it was questioned more than any other book by the Fathers, which is even more evidence he wasn’t basing his canon on any form of historical enquiry, or “primitive canon”, but based on his theology.

 

[I_Thirst]

Thanks, Khalid.

 

[bogeydogg]

He wanted to remove (definitely) James, Jude, Revelation, Hebrews, (possibly) 2 Peter, and I think one other book (3 John?), because they didn’t have “the character of the gospel message” (i.e. salvation by faith alone through grace alone through Christ alone) in them, in his opinion. To this day, those books are printed in a separate section after the New Testament (like the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles) in German Protestant Bibles.

Edit:

bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

I was wrong about 2 Peter. He didn’t remove it, even though it was questioned more than any other book by the Fathers, which is even more evidence he wasn’t basing his canon on any form of historical enquiry, or “primitive canon”, but based on his theology.

That is not right. These books are included in their normal place in NT canon in every Bible Lutheran or otherwise that I have ever seen just like in the Catholic Bible. Concerning the so-called apocrypha Luther did have them as a appendix and they remained so in all protestant Bibles until the late 19th C when they were removed altogether by the English Bible Society which, being 300 years after Luther’s death, he could not possibly have had anything to do with.

As far as the canonicity of NT books Luther later admitted that his questioning of these books was wrong including James and never printed or translated a single copy of the Bible which did not include all of these books as canon in their proper place. Luther never doubted the authenticity of canon he simply questioned whether the books about which there had been controversy were canon, and remember that the pre-Nicene fathers did raise questions about the Catholic Epistles inclusion so this was not a whole cloth invention. However Luther later retracted these questions and readily admitted their full inclusion into the canon.

God Bless

 

[Khalid]

I said in German Lutheran Bibles. Modern editions of Luther’s Bible, and, I believe, the modern Zürcher/Zwinglian Bible (kind of like a German NASB) have this arrangement (even though Zwlinglians and Lutherans are quite different). Anglophone Lutherans use the same Bibles as all other Anglophone Protestants, i.e. RSV, NASB, NIV. It’s a legacy of the influence of Luther in German Biblical translation. All English Bible translations follow the same order of books in the New Testament, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.

As far as the canonicity of NT books Luther later admitted that his questioning of these books was wrong…However Luther later retracted these questions and readily admitted their full inclusion into the canon.

Do you have any reference for that? Preferably a primary source (i.e. Luther himself). I never knew that, but I’m not a Luther scholar. I don’t know much about him beyond his historical role, the movement he spawned, etc., but, as far as his personal development goes, or much of his personal theological development (beyond those later adopted by Lutheranism, which aren’t always identical), I’ve only about 700 pages of his “Selected Writings” in a Classics Edition and nine volumes (sermons, letters, and lectures on Romans, one volume of lectures on Galatians) of the 56 volume set, “Collected Works of Martin Luther” translated in to English. That is, I know, “Luther, the Black Box of the Reformation” but know little of his internal life or personal development. I know about as much about the person of Luther, for the same level of knowledge I have of John Calvin: his collected commentaries and Institutes of the Christian Religion.

I wish I had the money for a Kindle with the large screen (the normal one is too small, like a paperback), because one can find all of the ancient theological writings on it for free, in most cases, as is the case with the Works of Luther, which cost about $2000 total if you buy each book separately. Even the Summa Theologiae is free - I saved money for half a year to afford the $250 dead tree edition.

 

[bogeydogg]

Luther’s recanting of his questioning the books came from R C Sproul’s writing about Luther. I can’t recall which book. As far as Calvin is concerned I care very little for him or his commentaries though I am reading the Institutes.

Concerning Luther’s view of the Canon I have the Catechism as well as the Book of Concord as reference points neither of which mention the slightest deviation from the Catholic Canon. And concerning the so-called “Apocrypha” I have my own Pastor, who is a doctor of Church History, who without hesitation affirms a Canon of 73 books much to the chagrin of my fellow parishioners.

As far other Lutheran Dioceses such as Missouri Synod etc I cannot comment on them because I am not a part of those Synods.

God Bless

 

[pablope]

I’ve been frustrated in almost all conversations with Protestant acquaintences because naturally we go largely by the Bible but it seems like our conversations are crippled before they get off the ground because they are not using a full Bible, first of all, and sometimes iffy translations, second of all. I’d like to get some comments from former Protestant converts to Catholicism as to what sold the fact that the Bible has 73 books and not 66 as seems to be the norm in America. This seems to be one of the major sticking points between protestants and Catholics and I’d like help on overcoming it.

This is in addition to the responses you already got.

It is indeed difficult to try to get your protestant friends who are ignorant of Bible history to get them to start looking into it.

So, I would suggest that you first ask them a question, which they think is easy on the surface. I have asked this of several protestants, and several evaded the question.

The question is: Have them cite the chapter and verse where St. Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Once they are able to locate this verse, then have them answer why they now believe the Gospel of Mark should be in Scripture? Based on this chapter and verse, why do they accept the Gospel of Mark as part of the Bible, how do they know it is even Scriptural, and also, how do they know not just anybody named Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? Keep in mind, the Bible did not come with a table of contents.

Once some realize the implication of this question, you will get evasive responses. One person I asked opined that authorship was not important, that the names of author were just placed in there. Once I told him the implications of his opinion, he attacked me again and tried to divert the question.

But also arm yourself with how the Canon was developed.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

 

[pablope]

That is not right. These books are included in their normal place in NT canon in every Bible Lutheran or otherwise that I have ever seen just like in the Catholic Bible.

Hi, BD…I heard or read here from some Luther scholars, that Luther initially re-ordered the NT list and wanted to start with the earliest writing to the oldest.

Luther also doubted the canonicity of James. However, I asked what changed Luther’s mind on the order of the NT and on James. I think nobody has answered on what changed Luther’s mind.

Concerning the so-called apocrypha Luther did have them as a appendix and they remained so in all protestant Bibles until the late 19th C when they were removed altogether by the English Bible Society which, being 300 years after Luther’s death, he could not possibly have had anything to do with.