Catholic Bible vs King James and others

[Apryl]

I am wondering why The Catholic Bible has books in it that Luther decided to remove- or maybe the better question is WHY did Luther remove those books? I have heard the sarcastic remark that Luther had to remove these books to justify his own teaching, but I am sure protestants have a much more complex explanation. A woman at work keeps telling me how many bibles she owns and I want to ask her so bad why she has to have so many but I want to approach the subject in a more Christian way to get her to honestly question why her Bibles are lacking all the books.

This is a subject very near and dear to my heart:

I’m a Catholic, and proud of it, but I happen to prefer the Modern King James Version of the Bible… just wish it had all the books in it.

I’ve asked some Protestant friends that are very involved in their church to explain to me why there are books in one Bible, but not in another. The answer that I got - that made sense, even if I don’t agree with it - was that the removed books just didn’t agree with the rest of the books. There was no reason to add those books.

I didn’t bother to argue that the books weren’t added, since they were in there from 2000 years ago.

And there are several Catholic Bibles. There isn’t ONE Catholic Bible, as there isn’t one Protestant Bible.

I happen to like to have varied translations. My reasoning is that these are translations, and while I may not make sense from one set of words, if I have the same verse given to me in more than one set of words, from more than one perspective, I’m probably going to understand it better.

This has only been a problem with a few passages when the differences are huge

 

[flyersfan1088]

The Protestant OT is based on the Palestinian canon used by Hebrew speaking Jews in Palestine. The Catholic OT is based on the Alexandrian canon used by the Greek speaking Jews throughout the Mediterranean(including Palestine).

The city of Alexandria had the greatest library in the ancient world. Around 250 B.C. a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was begun by 70 Jewish scholars. From this translation we get the name Septuagint(Latin for 70).

This Greek translation was very popular because Greek was the common language of the entire Mediterrranean world by the time of Christ. Hebrew was a dying language. Jews in Palestine usually spoke Aramaic. The Septuagint would have been the translation used by Jesus and the NT writers. In fact there are over 300 quotes from the OT found in the NT are from the Septuagint. Remember also that the entire NT was written in Greek.

The Hebrew canon was established by Jewish rabbis at the council of Jamnia about 100 A.D., perhaps in reaction to the Christian Church, which was using the Alexandrian canon. The Jews rejected 7 books, as well as portions of Daniel and Esther chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the Septuagint translated into Greek.

The Christian Church continued to use the Septuagint. When the Church officially approved which books composed the canon of the Bible (Hippo 393AD, Carthage397AD) it approved the 46 books of the Alexandrian canon as the canon for the OT. For 1600. This canon was a matter of uncontested faith until the Reformation.

In 1529 Martin Luther proposed the Palestinian canon of 39 books in Hebrew as the OT canon. He found his justification for removing the books in the old concerns of the council at Jamnia, that the Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts. However, research into the Dead Sea Scrolls has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books, making their rejection unsupportable on those grounds.

Here is the real question. Which OT would you rather use? The OT used by Jesus, the NT writers and the early Church, or the OT used by the Jews who rejected Christ and persecuted Christians?

If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow Jesus and the early Church. If your Bible omits these seven books, you follow the non-Christian Jews at Jamnia and Martin Luther

 

[Teflon93]

For all of you who have had snide remarks to make, I present this from Mark Shea…you know, the Catholic apologist. Maybe you should take your snide remarks to Shea.

You can find the following at:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Obviously there are things Shea has to say that I find objectionable but notice he says two (2) things of interest:
a.) the canon wasn’t dogmatically defined until Trent

b.) Christians had flexibility on what they regarded as canon during this time

What does it mean if the canon wasn’t dogmatically defined until Trent and believers had flexibility in what they regarded as the canon? It means that the canon was not settled until Trent. If something is settled the church wouldn’t have allowed for flexibility in accepting the canon.

So provide me with the list of pre-Reformation Catholic Bibles which excluded any or all of the deuterocanonical books.

No fragments, please—whole editions. Should be easy, since there was such heterodoxy on this, right?

 

[Calvinator]

So provide me with the list of pre-Reformation Catholic Bibles which excluded any or all of the deuterocanonical books.

No fragments, please—whole editions. Should be easy, since there was such heterodoxy on this, right?

Please show me where I claimed pre Reformation bibles exluded the apocrypha.

I suggest you re-read my posts 'cuz I never made such a claim.

 

[Teflon93]

I suggest you read some church history that hasn’t been sanitized for apologetics purposes.

I suggest given your history of cherrypicking consular documents for your own purposes you remove that log in your eye, my friend.

You continue to not understand that “dogmatically defined” and “defined” are not synonyms within the Catholic Church.

The canon is manifest in PRINTED BIBLES.

So before you shout, “a-ha!” you’d better find some approved Catholic Bibles which excluded the deuterocanonical books pre-Reformation or you’re talking out your hat.

 

[flyersfan1088]

c.) There was no consensus before Trent that the books in question were canonical.

I suggest you read some church history that hasn’t been sanitized for apologetics purposes.

C is still wrong. Repeating it won’t make it true.

You have no idea what I have or have not read, so please don’t presume that you do.

 

[Teflon93]

Please show me where I claimed pre Reformation bibles exluded the apocrypha.

I suggest you re-read my posts 'cuz I never made such a claim.

Then you concede the point, to whit:

The canon WAS settled before the dogmatic definition at Trent.

It had to be in order to know which books to place in the Bible.

This is an obvious fact which you paper over with ignorance of how dogma is defined.

 

[Calvinator]

This canon was a matter of uncontested faith until the Reformation.

Surely you are kidding right? Please go back and read my earlier posts as they are sufficient to show you the error of your above claim.

There was not unanimity and to claim otherwise is just silly.

Where are you getting this idea that “This canon was a matter of uncontested faith until the Reformation.”?

 

[Calvinator]

Then you concede the point, to whit:

The canon WAS settled before the dogmatic definition at Trent.

It had to be in order to know which books to place in the Bible.

This is an obvious fact which you paper over with ignorance of how dogma is defined.

I concede nothing. You obviously never read my earlier posts.

How can the canon be settled when:
a.) Believers were free to reject the canon up until Trent and people did in fact reject the apocrypha up until Trent.

b.) Trent had a vote on which books to include and some of the Tridentine fathers rejected the apocrypha at that point.

 

[Calvinator]

This is an obvious fact which you paper over with ignorance of how dogma is defined.

Instead of throwing out ad hominem attacks I suggest you rebut what I have offered. Apparently both Shea and newadvent.org are in agreement with me and not you my friend.

 

[Calvinator]

I have laid out my points pretty clearly, so somebody show me where I am wrong.

Again:
a.) Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the canon.

b.) Believers were free to accept or rejec the canon up until Trent.

c.) There was no consensus on the apocrypha until Trent.

d.) There was a vote at Trent which determined the canon and some of the Tridentine fathers rejected the apocrypha.

Now, I ask again. Where am I wrong on the above points and please don’t twist my words and ask me to prove something I haven’t claimed.

 

[Turtullian]

I concede nothing. You obviously never read my earlier posts.

How can the canon be settled when:
a.) Believers were free to reject the canon up until Trent and people did in fact reject the apocrypha up until Trent.

b.) Trent had a vote on which books to include and some of the Tridentine fathers rejected the apocrypha at that point.

The Ecumenical Council of Florence:

Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good.** It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.**

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

The Council of Florence in the Bull of Union with the Copts made the above statement. It recognized those books of the above above as inspired by the Holy ghost and since they are inspired are therefore Scripture.

 

[flyersfan1088]

Surely you are kidding right? Please go back and read my earlier posts as they are sufficient to show you the error of your above claim.

There was not unanimity and to claim otherwise is just silly.

Where are you getting this idea that “This canon was a matter of uncontested faith until the Reformation.”?

THE FACT THAT EVERY BIBLE HAD THEM!!!

 

[Calvinator]

THE FACT THAT EVERY BIBLE HAD THEM!!!

What do you make of Cardinals Cajetan, Ximens and the Glossa and the venerable Bede? They rejected the apocrypha explicitly. Why do you overlook this?

The KJV of the bible originally contained the apocrypha but I can guarantee you that none of the reformers accepted them as inspired and I have shown proof, even from catholic sources that there was no unanimity on this issue.

 

[Calvinator]

The Ecumenical Council of Florence:

The Council of Florence in the Bull of Union with the Copts made the above statement. It recognized those books of the above above as inspired by the Holy ghost and since they are inspired are therefore Scripture.

I appreciate your post Turtullian but how does this rebut any of my four points?

 

[Turtullian]

I appreciate your post Turtullian but how does this rebut any of my four points?

I am simply saying it is erroneus to say that the canon was closed at Trent or that it was ok to say it was ok to remove 6 books from the Canon. The Canon at Florence is established and all of the books mentioned by that council are canon. It would be erroneus to argue that books like Tobit or Judith have no place in scripture when an ecumenical council has deliberated and verified the authenticity and inspiration of those 72 books.

 

[Teflon93]

I have laid out my points pretty clearly, so somebody show me where I am wrong.

Again:
a.) Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the canon.

b.) Believers were free to accept or rejec the canon up until Trent.

c.) There was no consensus on the apocrypha until Trent.

d.) There was a vote at Trent which determined the canon and some of the Tridentine fathers rejected the apocrypha.

Now, I ask again. Where am I wrong on the above points and please don’t twist my words and ask me to prove something I haven’t claimed.

C is wrong.

Consensus never means that there is no dissent. We even have dissent on dogma!

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sen-suhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sus·es. 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

So to say there was no consensus is to maintain that there was neither a majority of opinion nor a general agreement regarding the canon of Scripture in the Catholic Church before Trent.

That simply isn’t so, and the contents of Bibles pre-Trent should provide ample evidence of this.

Consensus existed from at least the 4th century, as represented in the 73 books included in Scripture from that time.

Again, you labor under a misconception of how dogma works.

 

[Teflon93]

I concede nothing. You obviously never read my earlier posts.

How can the canon be settled when:
a.) Believers were free to reject the canon up until Trent and people did in fact reject the apocrypha up until Trent.

b.) Trent had a vote on which books to include and some of the Tridentine fathers rejected the apocrypha at that point.

I have read all of them. You obviously make bold statements regarding intent and fact without evidence.

The canon was settled WHEN BIBLES WERE PRINTED.

You do realize that this was a fundamental decision which had to be made in order to circulate Scripture, right?

Last I saw we had some 83 early Greek Bibles. Which of these had a different canon than Trent?

If the canon wasn’t settled, wouldn’t they?

I hate to use scare caps but you seem to think that the Church had to be unanimous on everything in order for something to be taught and believed. It wasn’t true in the 1st century; isn’t true today. And it’s not true in your own community either.

So you’re essentially arguing with a strawman you’ve built, and we’re trying (in vain, I think) to correct you.

One of the myths Protestants in particular have of Trent is that it settled upon a different canon than the Church recognized in the 4th century.

The Church not only recognized a specific canon, but carefully selected translations so as not to breed heresy. The notion that it was all “believe whatever you want to and quote any text someone claims to be Gospel” is just not so.

 

[Calvinator]

Uh…Teflon,

You offer:
Teflon's definition of consensus:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sen-suhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sus·es. 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Well, from Merriam Webseter
Webster's:

consensus
One entry found.

consensus

Main Entry: con·sen·sus
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
Date: 1843
1 a: general agreement : **unanimity **<the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

It would seem to me that one definition of “consensus” is unanimity.

Since unanimity is the state of being unanimous, we have the following from Merriam Webster

unanimous
One entry found.

unanimous

Main Entry: unan·i·mous
Pronunciation: \yu̇-ˈna-nə-məs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin unanimus, from unus one + animus mind — more at one, animate
Date: 1624
**1 : being of one mind : agreeing **2 : formed with or indicating unanimity : **having the agreement and consent of all **— unan·i·mous·ly adverb

Obvoiusly your church did not have unanimity when it came to the apocrypha. BTW, even if consensus only meant the majority of opinion, I would think the bulk of my posts would have made it clear what I meant.

You say I make bold statements of fact w/out evidence and at the same time say you have read all my posts. Something is wrong with one of your two statements. If you had read what I posted you would see that I offered proof for each point. If you don’t think I have offered proof you must not have read my posts.

How can something be settled for the church when even the Tridentine fathers were conflicted on how they viewed the apocrypha and up until Trent, believers were free to accept or reject the books you claim are canonical?

Even if every bible every bible used up until Trent included the apocrypha it would make no difference as to whether the issue was settled. First, as I have stated before, even the KJV first had the apocrypha included but certainly no reformer considered them inspired. Secondly, major theologians and works (such as the gloss) clearly deny the canonical status of the apocrypha.

Unless you and I define “settled” quite a bit differently, the case for the canon of the OT was clearly not settled.

You also say

Teflon:

I hate to use scare caps but you seem to think that the Church had to be unanimous on everything in order for something to be taught and believed. It wasn’t true in the 1st century; isn’t true today. And it’s not true in your own community either.

Where did I imply this?

It is clear though, that the canon wasn’t “settled” before Trent. If it were, why in the world did the fathers at Trent vote on the issue with some fathers casing a negative vote?

You can’t twist my words to mean something they don’t. Well, you can try, and I know you will, but it won’t work.

Teflon:

So you’re essentially arguing with a strawman you’ve built, and we’re trying (in vain, I think) to correct you.

Even catholic sources agree with me.

Teflon:

One of the myths Protestants in particular have of Trent is that it settled upon a different canon than the Church recognized in the 4th century.

Sheeesh, I never said Trent defined the canon differently than the earlier councils. Although, there is the issue of Trent passing over one of the books in silence but why bring that up now, right?

Teflon:

The Church not only recognized a specific canon, but carefully selected translations so as not to breed heresy. The notion that it was all “believe whatever you want to and quote any text someone claims to be Gospel” is just not so.

C’mon, even Shea agrees believers had freedom on this issue and history proves this.

 

[Teflon93]

Uh…Teflon,

You offer:

Well, from Merriam Webseter

Obvoiusly your church did not have unanimity when it came to the apocrypha. BTW, even if consensus only meant the majority of opinion, I would think the bulk of my posts would have made it clear what I meant.

You say I make bold statements of fact w/out evidence and at the same time say you have read all my posts. Something is wrong with one of your two statements. If you had read what I posted you would see that I offered proof for each point. If you don’t think I have offered proof you must not have read my posts.

How can something be settled for the church when even the Tridentine fathers were conflicted on how they viewed the apocrypha and up until Trent, believers were free to accept or reject the books you claim are canonical?

Even if every bible every bible used up until Trent included the apocrypha it would make no difference as to whether the issue was settled. First, as I have stated before, even the KJV first had the apocrypha included but certainly no reformer considered them inspired. Secondly, major theologians and works (such as the gloss) clearly deny the canonical status of the apocrypha.

Unless you and I define “settled” quite a bit differently, the case for the canon of the OT was clearly not settled.

You also say

Where did I imply this?

It is clear though, that the canon wasn’t “settled” before Trent. If it were, why in the world did the fathers at Trent vote on the issue with some fathers casing a negative vote?

You can’t twist my words to mean something they don’t. Well, you can try, and I know you will, but it won’t work.

Even catholic sources agree with me.

Sheeesh, I never said Trent defined the canon differently than the earlier councils. Although, there is the issue of Trent passing over one of the books in silence but why bring that up now, right?

C’mon, even Shea agrees believers had freedom on this issue and history proves this.

Calvinator, you clearly do not understand how dogma is defined, and how belief is dealt with within the Church. How many posts have there been where we have tried to explain this to you? How many do you ignore?

You have yet to deal with the evidence we have offered—that the canon was established long before Trent, and indeed was in common enough usage that all the Bibles authorized had them.

Moreover, don’t Protestants make a stink about the fact that the Catholic Church denounced false translations pre-Trent? Is not agreement on a canon a prerequisite?

You drag out poor Bede and others to claim that they somehow are evidence that Calvin, Luther, and every other would-be Pope heretic had the authority to butcher the Bible as they pleased. That’s great, because you have NO authority in the matter either.

So much for someone who claims to love the Bible.

Now kindly tell me why the Jefferson Bible is invalid, why the Bowdlerized Bibles of the Victorian Era are invalid, and why the Jesus Seminar/Discovery Channel folks who will yet again “discover” another false Gospel just in time for Easter can’t have The Gospel of Ringo in their Bible either.

Pop over to the KJV-only thread while you’re at it and defend the loonies who believe the King James Version was dictated by God. That’s the company you’re keeping, and your completely bogus arguments, when applied to your fellow Protestants and even Mormons, will leave you stammering.

So let’s simplify this considerably:

The Catholic Church determined the 73 books of the Bible in the 4th century. We validated the same 73 in the 16th century, when you lot suddenly discovered a new love for Jewish tradition when it eliminated purgatory from Scripture and thus suited your particular heretical strain.

And, since you now claim unanimity in the Church is required, you can kindly explain why Calvin, whom few Calvinists today agree with completely, matters at all.

As for me, I will simply pray that at some point you actually listen to Catholics when we speak of how doctrine and dogma get defined in our Church, which has got to be more comforting to you than the utter anarchy of your own.