7 books of the Bible?

[Janet_S]

And the Protestants did not exclude them but continued to use them as a part of the ecclesiatical canon, just as they had been used for a long time.
JJ

They most definitely did exclude them. They aren’t in your Bible now are they?

 

[Janet_S]

The Gutenberg Bible is a Vugate so it contained the books normally found there, I don’t know if it also included the introductions to the books which spelled out which books were apocryphal, and using that term.
JJ

The introductions in the Vulgate are the called the Prologues, and they were written by Jerome. You can read some of them here BTW:
bombaxo.com/prologues.html

Jerome had objections to these books being canonical (for a variety of reasons), but Jerome wasn’t the Pope, and in the end he included them in his Vulgate translation at the instruction of Pope Damasus.

Jerome didn’t think these books belonged in the canon, but Augustine did. Why don’t you agree with Augustine?

Of course, neither Jerome nor Augustine by themselves had the authority to make that decision for the Church. That matter was taken up by Church Councils. All the Church Councils that dealt with the issue of the canon of Scripture–from the 4th century on–have always included the 7 deuterocanonical books in lists of inspired Scripture; Jerome translated these books and included them in his Vulgate translation at the order of the Pope; the first printed Bible (from 1455) contains these books too. Anyone can look at the Gutenberg Bible online and see that these books are in the OT canon.

Now, 500 years after the Reformation, Protestants have eliminated these 7 books from their Bibles, even though they know there is abundant information from the Church Fathers and from Church Councils that Christians have always used these books as inspired Scripture, read during the liturgy. All the ancient Churches --Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic–accept them. The Protestants are the only Christians who have excluded them from their Bibles.

We know the early Church Councils accepted these books and read them during the liturgy; now Protestants totally reject them, have eliminated any trace of them from their Bibles, criticize them, claim they are full of historical and doctrinal errors, etc, etc.

Yet it was the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent that radically changed things?

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

I have a couple of Bibles that include the Apocrypha that are not Catholic editions…

The REB, NRSV, RSV and KJV are all available today with the complete Apocrypha.

The ones who removed them were the Bible Societies. The Reformers never did, the daily lectionary still used in several Protestant denominations still incudes readings from the Apocrypha.

Take a look at christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntk=keywords&Ntt=bible+apocrypha&action=Search&N=0&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1 about the first two pages are Protestant bibles with the Apocrypha which incidentally, unlike Catholic Bibles, includes all the books in the Vulgate, even the Prayer of Mannasah and 1 and 2 Esdras (3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate).

In one matter of historical trivia, on New Years Day in 1649, as the end of the 30 year war was celebrated, the text of the Swedish Chaplain was Ecclestiaticus 50:22-24.

JJ

 

[Janet_S]

I have a couple of Bibles that include the Apocrypha that are not Catholic editions…

The REB, NRSV, RSV and KJV are all available today with the complete Apocrypha.
JJ

Isn’t this the exception rather than the rule, though?

I realize the reformers included the deutercanonical books in appendices, but Protestantism today is very far removed from the Protestantism of the Reformers. Some of the Reformers also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and in the Immaculate Conception. No Protestants believe in those things today, however.

Another few bits of trivia: I also heard, from the Bombaxo website, that in England, if you swear an oath on the Bible, it must be a Bible that includes the deutercanonical books.

Also that the book of Sirach was read in Jewish synagogues for the feast of Passover.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Jolly Joe, a point to note is that the seven books were officially removed from Protestant books in 1829 when the ABS said they would make cheap copies of the Bible if they were allowed to not include the seven books. So the authorities at the time conceded to this. The ABS doubly the cheaping of the Bible.

1st. Phyisically cheapening making it less expensive by leaving out seven books. Scamming people to make a buck.

2nd, Spiritually cheapening it by leaving those out.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

What makes you think that a private publisher speaks for Protestant Churches? There’s no such thing as officially removed.

And based on that early a date you must mean the British and Foreign Bible Society. The Amercan Bible Society would have been later, sometime after the Civil War if I remember correctly,

In any case times change, and I know the ABS does indeed sell Catholic editions, and I know there is at least have the RSV and NRSV translations with the Protestant Apocrypha. store.bibles.com/products//ABS_NEW/119262.aspx

JJ

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Jolly Joe, are you an Anglican?

The only Protestants I know who would regularly read from these 7 books of the OT in their worship are the Anglicans. I understand that even the Revised Common Lectionary used by many Protestant communities offer an alternative when a passage is chosen from these 7 books, for the benefit of those that do not hold them as canonical.

 

[JoeyWarren]

What makes you think that a private publisher speaks for Protestant Churches? There’s no such thing as officially removed.

And based on that early a date you must mean the British and Foreign Bible Society. The Amercan Bible Society would have been later, sometime after the Civil War if I remember correctly,

In any case times change, and I know the ABS does indeed sell Catholic editions, and I know there is at least have the RSV and NRSV translations with the Protestant Apocrypha. store.bibles.com/products//ABS_NEW/119262.aspx

JJ

The American Bible Society was founded in 1816. And they were very anti-catholic.

Yes, times do change.

BUT they realized that Catholic Money sits just as secure in the Bank as does Protestant Money, so now they produce Catholic Bibles. After all, they are a business first regardless of what their mission statement claims and regardless of the dot org designation.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Jolly Joe, are you an Anglican?

The only Protestants I know who would regularly read from these 7 books of the OT in their worship are the Anglicans. I understand that even the Revised Common Lectionary used by many Protestant communities offer an alternative when a passage is chosen from these 7 books, for the benefit of those that do not hold them as canonical.

I don’t think there is much difference. I know the Lutheran Book of Worship’s daily lectionary was based on the Book of Common Prayer of 1979. If you saw the Anglican read the Apocrypha and the Lutheran didn’t, it’s likely because the Anglican had an Oxford Bible which included the Apocrypha and the Lutheran was using an edition that did not. (The Higher Critical footnotes in the Oxford Bibles drive the conservative Lutherans crazy so you don’t see many, just like you wouldn’t see many Scofield Bibles which are so instrumental in popularizing dispensationalism in the US, but that’s another thread).

Publishers in the US haven’t been very Apocrypha friendly, but that’s probably because of the Baptist/Puritan influence, plus, the English publishers, Oxford and Cambridge still have an effective monopoly on the KJV in England since it is crown copyrighted. They have a base market they fundamentally don’t have the same competition in compared to a US based publisher.

It’s strange to say it comes down to business, but I believe that would actually be accurate.

JJ

 

[jblake]

peregrinus_sg;:

Perhaps some wanted more books of the Apocrypha to be included?

One of the points made by Anglican Apologetics, is that the Council of Trent accidentally omitted 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and PrMan.

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

They most definitely did exclude them. They aren’t in your Bible now are they?

That probably has more to do with the economics of publishing, than with theology. Even when it was a crime to publish the Bible without the deuterocanonical texts, printers did omit the deuterocanonical books.

I don’t know if it is a trend, or something that has happened since the eighteenth century, but it looks to me like it is easier to purchase Bibles that omit the OT, than contain them. (Other than at the local Catholic book store, every Catholic study Bible I’ve seen at local bookstores has omitted both the deuterocanonical books, and the Old Testament.)

xan

jonathon

 

[Janet_S]

That probably has more to do with the economics of publishing, than with theology. Even when it was a crime to publish the Bible without the deuterocanonical texts, printers did omit the deuterocanonical books.

I don’t know if it is a trend, or something that has happened since the eighteenth century, but it looks to me like it is easier to purchase Bibles that omit the OT, than contain them. (Other than at the local Catholic book store, every Catholic study Bible I’ve seen at local bookstores has omitted both the deuterocanonical books, and the Old Testament.)

xan

jonathon

It has everything to do with theology–the doctrine of Purgatory. Luther claimed no proof of Purgatory was in Scripture; Catholics claimed 2 Maccabees proved otherwise. Luther then claimed 2 Maccabees lacked sufficient authority, and appealed to St Jerome’s opinion. Luther wanted to minimize the importance of 2 Maccabees, and, in order to do that, he had to minimize the importance of all the deuterocanonical books. He didn’t remove the deutercanonical books, but by introducing the novelty of setting them in a separate section of the Bible, he set the stage for their rejection by Protestants, which we all know eventually happened.

How many Protestants today have the deutercanonical books in their Bibles?

Luther’s German Translation introduced more than one radical innovation. With rare exceptions, Christian bibles before Luther had not only included the Deuterocanon, but had intermixed them by category among the Protocanon of the OT. Even John Wycliffe, considered by Protestants as the great role-model of bible translators, followed this practice. It was Luther’s bible which broke with this traditional practice in favor of a new chronological or near chronological order. This new arrangement may have proved advantageous for those readers who wished to peruse the Bible cover to cover, but the new order removed the Deuterocanonical books from their former place in the story of salvation. **Luther’s new order inevitably led those who read his bible (and the translations that followed his) to view the Deuterocanon as something extraneous to the word of God. Luther’s second novelty was gathering of the Deuterocanonical books into an appendix at the end of the OT and marking them “Apocrypha.” **. . .

Luther’s own use of the Deuterocanon ought to speak against the later notion that Catholics somehow foisted strange, alien books into the Bible where they never belonged. After all, if no one had ever really considered these books Scripture, why bother to qualify them as not being equal to Scripture? Why not simply publish a bible without them and let it stand, as Trent had published its canon without comment? Luther hesitated to do so because such a move would have been too radical even for his followers. No such bible had ever been published in the history of Christendom–not even by Jerome. Instead, Luther reformatted the Scriptures. The resulting edition was still unlike any bible ever seen before, but at least the changes could be justified as reflecting certain doubts entertained by some veneraqble doctors. Luther in other words, moved slowly with his original German bible–but the move undoubtedly paved the way for more radical changes to come. (pp 253-255, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary G Michuta)

Are you really claiming money is the driving force keeping the deuterocanonical books out of Protestant Bibles today? What do you suppose the cost is? It must be insignificant.

As far as Catholic Bibles omitting the OT and the deuterocanonical books, I’ve never seen one like this. Are you thinking of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible which comes in a set and which you can buy each book separately?
catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1001916/Ignatius-Catholic-Study-Bible-Complete-Set/

 

[Janet_S]

Even when it was a crime to publish the Bible without the deuterocanonical texts, printers did omit the deuterocanonical books. . .
jonathon

I never knew this was a crime. Can you tell us more about this.

 

[Janet_S]

One of the points made by Anglican Apologetics, is that the Council of Trent accidentally omitted 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and PrMan.

xan

jonathon

I don’t think it was an accident. These books weren’t included the the list of inspired Scripture from the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Florence either. Trent looked to previous councils for its decision:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

**The Council of Trent’s Definition of the Canon (1546)**It was the exigencies of controversy that first led Luther to draw a sharp line between the books of the Hebrew Canon and the Alexandrian writings. In his disputation with Eck at Leipzig, in 1519, when his opponent urged the well-known text from II Machabees in proof of the doctrine of purgatory, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the books was outside the Canon. In the first edition of Luther’s Bible, 1534, the deuteros were relegated, as apocrypha, to a separate place between the two Testaments. To meet this radical departure of the Protestants, and as well define clearly the inspired sources from which the Catholic Faith draws its defence, the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as “sacred and canonical” all the books of the Old and New Testaments “with all their parts as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition”. During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither–and this is remarkable–in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. **In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. **The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition. The Tridentine catalogue has been given above.

 

[jblake]

Janet S:

By setting them in a separate section of the Bible, he set the stage for their rejection by Protestants, which we all know eventually happened.

Luther formalized something that had been brewing for centuries — What texts to include, and what texts to exclude in Bibles. This applied to canonical, deuterocanonical,and non-canonical books.

Gutenburg’s press dates to 1436. Luther’s translation of the Bible was published in 1522.

Are you really claiming money is the driving force keeping the deuterocanonical books out of Protestant Bibles today?

When the practice first started, (circa 1620 for ENglsih Bibles) it was purely because of economics. There was a significant price difference between Bibles that included the deuterocanonical material, and those that excluded them. The less expensive Bibles were purchased. This created a supply and demand situation.

This price differential can still be seen today. [Look at the price difference between Protestant, Catholic, Anglican, and Greek Orthodox Bibles. ]

There is not nearly the demand for Bibles that include deuterocanonical material, as there is for Bibles that omit it. This means that initial production costs have to be distributed over fewer products, resulting in a higher base cost.

What do you suppose the cost is? It must be insignificant.

Published through Lulu.com, you are looking at per copy prices of roughly US$50.00 for the color version, and US$7.00 for the B&W version — for Catholic Bibles. Add roughly 5% of those figures for Anglican Bibles, and roughly 10% for Greek Orthodox Bibles.

Going by the cost of mass market paperbacks, you are looking at a difference of between US$3.00 and US$5.00 per copy.

Are you thinking of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible which comes in a set and which you can buy each book separately?

No. What I’ve seen are trade paperbacks, and hard cover editions that proudly proclaim themselves to be Catholic Study Bibles.

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Janet S;:

I never knew this was a crime. Can you tell us more about this.

Originally, it was Anglican Canon Law. It was proclaimed as law by various English Monarch, but seldom enforced. [Monarchs decreed it, reiterated it, revoked it,or ignored it, depending upon their religious orientation, and the way the winds of political power were blowing. ] I’ve forgotten who finally revoked it, but it was a dead issue before the end of the eighteenth century. So much so that it even dropped out of Anglican Canon law.

xan

jonathon

 

[Janet_S]

Luther formalized something that had been brewing for centuries — What texts to include, and what texts to exclude in Bibles. This applied to canonical, deuterocanonical,and non-canonical books.

Gutenburg’s press dates to 1436. Luther’s translation of the Bible was published in 1522.

Luther formalized his canon of Scripture and took a different course from that of the historical Church. The Catholic Church’s canon of Scripture didn’t change after the Council of Trent. The canon we have today is the same as the Council of Trent (16th century) which is the same as the Council of Florence (15th century) which is the same as the Council of Carthage (5th century).

The Gutenberg Bible (15th century) has the 7 deutercanonical books included with the rest of the OT books, while Luther’s OT (16th) does not. (The 7 deutercanonical books are in a separate section in Luther’s OT.) This is what Gary Michuta was referring to when he wrote this in his book:

**Luther’s German Translation introduced more than one radical innovation. With rare exceptions, Christian bibles before Luther had not only included the Deuterocanon, but had intermixed them by category among the Protocanon of the OT. **

The Gutenberg Bible is proof of what the OT looked like before Luther made his radical changes.

 

[jblake]

Janet S;:

The Gutenberg Bible is proof of what the OT looked like before Luther made his radical changes.

I could, with equal justification, cite the Aleppo Codex, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandria, or Codex Byzantine as to what the OT looked like.

xan

jonathon

 

[Janet_S]

I could, with equal justification, cite the Aleppo Codex, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandria, or Codex Byzantine as to what the OT looked like.

xan

jonathon

None of these documents is identical to Luther’s translation either, so I’m not sure what your point is. Do any of these texts separate the deuterocanonical books from the rest of the OT books and label them “Apocrypha”? Because that was my point and Gary Michuta’s point. With a few exceptions, Luther was the first to do this, and it was a radical change. It led Protestants to begin to think these books were extraneous and not the word of God, and it eventually led to them excluding these books entirely from Protestant Bibles even though the Church had always considered them canonical.

I realize there are a few exceptions–some Protestant Bibles still include these 7 books in a separate appendix–but that is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

I have trouble paying much attention to Gary Mitchuta about his conclusions because it’s clear he didn’t spend much time checking. As was already pointed out in this thread a well known Latin translation published between the time of Luther’s New Testament and complete translation put the Apocryphal books in a separate section.

It’s not an obscure translation either. It was instrumental in the Spanish translation that was so popular for years as well as the English translations based on Tyrdale and so on.

If a person is reporting history and he doesn’t take the time to actually do the research, it’s hard to pay much attention to his conclusion. Luther was not the first to use the order he did. The one difference might be labelling them apocrypha but that might be the same too. Maybe someone has access to a copy and could say for sure.

It wasn’t a new thing to label them as nonscripture either.

Maybe it was new to both separate and label them. Maybe.

JJ