Catholic/protestant bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter guardian1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

guardian1

Guest
i’m looking into catholicism (was raised protestant) and had been told that "those catholics are screwed up. they have seven EXTRA books in their bible. i had always assumed that the catholics added these books. i did a google on it and it seems that those books were in fact REMOVED during the protestant reformation. i haven’t been able to find out who exactly did this, if it was one man or a council of some kind that decided which books were to be removed. i was wondering if anyone knew the particulars on this subject or some websites that could point me in the right direction. thanks
 
guardian1 said:
i’m looking into catholicism (was raised protestant) and had been told that "those catholics are screwed up. they have seven EXTRA books in their bible. i had always assumed that the catholics added these books. i did a google on it and it seems that those books were in fact REMOVED during the protestant reformation. i haven’t been able to find out who exactly did this, if it was one man or a council of some kind that decided which books were to be removed. i was wondering if anyone knew the particulars on this subject or some websites that could point me in the right direction. thanks
Click to expand...
The TRUTH: Martin Luther decided all on his own to stop using books that had been a part of christianity since the very beginning.

He based his concept on the Jewish canon which had been decided in the year 90 at the Council of Jamnia. At that council, the Rabbis excluded books based on arbitrary reasoning, but mostly because the christians were using those books with such great success. The Rabbis also expelled christians from the synagogues at that council. Some of those books today are known to Protestants as the apocrypha.

He also decided to remove four New Testament letters - James, Hebrews, Jude & Revelation, but having no foundation as with the Jewish canon, those letters were retained.

The Catholic bible contains books that have been used since the beginning of christianity.

ccel.org/info/apoc.html

Subrosa
 
Subrosa said:
The TRUTH: Martin Luther decided all on his own to stop using books that had been a part of christianity since the very beginning.

He based his concept on the Jewish canon which had been decided in the year 90 at the Council of Jamnia. At that council, the Rabbis excluded books based on arbitrary reasoning, but mostly because the christians were using those books with such great success. The Rabbis also expelled christians from the synagogues at that council. Some of those books today are known to Protestants as the apocrypha.
Click to expand...
Although Luther called the books “apocrypha” and placed them in a section named such, he did not actually take them out of the Bible. Protestant Bibles did include these books until the Bible Societies removed them to save money on the printing costs in the 19th century. It is still possible to purchase the KJV, RSV, NEB, and NRSV with the apocrypha (what we Catholics call the Deuterocanonicals). I own all of these Bibles with all of the books.
 
This was never a topic we discussed growing up as a Protestant. In school, I heard and read about the various reasons why we don’t include what we call the Apocryphal books. Below is partly what I remember, partly what I found in a quick look on-line. Its not meant to be inclusive or even what I personally believe, but I think it is representative of various Protestant views I’ve ran into.

The Luther Bible included what Protestants call the Apocrypha, labeling them: "APOCRYPHA, that is, Books which are not to be esteemed like the Holy Scriptures, and yet which are useful and good to read”. Calvin wrote, “I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books”.

Edward F. Hills wrote in The King James Version Defended:
But although all Protestants rejected the Apocrypha as canonical Old Testament Scripture, there was still considerable disagreement among them as to what to do with these controversial books. Luther rejected 1 and 2 Esdras, and placed the other apocryphal books in an appendix at the close of the Old Testament … The early English Bibles, including finally the King James Version, placed the Apocrypha in the same location, and in addition the Church of England retained the custom of reading from the Apocrypha in its public worship services during certain seasons of the year. In opposition to this practice Puritans and Presbyterians agitated for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible. In 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed to this, and since this time the Apocrypha has been eliminated almost entirely from English Bibles (except pulpit Bibles).

Examples of Protestant Bibles that included the Apocrypha: Tyndale’s Bible (1525 A.D.), Coverdale’s Bible (1535 A.D.), Matthew’s Bible (1537 A.D.), Taverner’s Bible (1539 A.D.), the Great Bible, (1539 A.D.), the Geneva Bible (1560 A.D.) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568 A.D.).

Another reason sometimes cited is that these books were not formally added to the Canon of the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent:

*And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below:

Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.*

Some of the other reasons cited:
• They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon.
• Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.
• Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) neither mentions or quotes them.
• They were never quoted or alluded to by Jesus Christ or any of the apostles. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events.
• Jewish scholars meeting at the Council of Jabneh did not recognize them.
• None of the Apocrypha claim inspiration or divine authority.

God Bless,
JW
 
guardian1 said:
I’m looking into Catholicism (was raised protestant) and had been told that "those catholics are screwed up. they have seven EXTRA books in their bible. i had always assumed that the catholics added these books. i did a Google on it and it seems that those books were in fact REMOVED during the protestant reformation. i haven’t been able to find out who exactly did this, if it was one man or a council of some kind that decided which books were to be removed. i was wondering if anyone knew the particulars on this subject or some websites that could point me in the right direction. thanks
Click to expand...
Hi
Revelation 22:18
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Unquote
The Catholics put the burden on the Protestants and the Protestants on the Catholics for addition/subs-traction of the books in NTBible. The fact is that they both come under the responsibility/warning of the above quote of Revelation 22:18. They both should resolve the matter on an urgent basis to protect their belief.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi
Revelation 22:18
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Unquote
The Catholics put the burden on the Protestants and the Protestants on the Catholics for addition/subs-traction of the books in NTBible. The fact is that they both come under the responsibility/warning of the above quote of Revelation 22:18. They both should resolve the matter on an urgent basis to protect their belief.
And what of Islam’s addition? Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
Click to expand...
 
Protestant_68 said:
Some of the other reasons cited:
• They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon.
• Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.
• Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) neither mentions or quotes them.
• They were never quoted or alluded to by Jesus Christ or any of the apostles. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events.
• Jewish scholars meeting at the Council of Jabneh did not recognize them.
• None of the Apocrypha claim inspiration or divine authority.

God Bless,
JW
Click to expand...
With all due respect, it isn’t that simple, is it?
In regard to the statement that they were never part of the Jewish canon…that’s kind of a round-about statement, isn’t it? Forgive me-as a convert I also never learned much about them as a Southern Baptist.😃

A few questions/replies:
-They were esteemed by the Alexandrian Jews, weren’t they?
-Isn’t there argument about the state of the Syrian or Palestinian canon of the time?

-Philo, from what I’ve read, didn’t discuss many books of the Palestinian canon, either. It’s just the supposition that he would have discussed Wisdom, isn’t it?

-The clearly defined canon of the Old Testament was even held in varying levels of reverence or respect. I.e. the Law vs. prophets etc…

Again, I’m just curious for my own sake and not trying to start any kind of fight. I still forget about them from time to time:p
 
Can any Protestant answer this one question–why should any group of Jews in 90AD

who reject Jesus and consider him absolutely dead in the ground and absolutely not God at all

have any say at all at what the Christians of that time who believed in Jesus as risen and God

should believe as the Word of God?

The Christians had been using the Septuagint for all of those years as the Holy Spirit was guiding the disciples into all truth just as Jesus had promised.

Now who’s right–the Holy Spirit guiding the disciples and Jesus promising that the Holy Spirit would do that?

Or the Jews who hated Jesus and thought that he wasn’t God and was dead?

Who gives a hoot what the “Jesus is dead” Jews of that time thought about anything?
 
Brian_C said:
With all due respect, it isn’t that simple, is it?
In regard to the statement that they were never part of the Jewish canon…that’s kind of a round-about statement, isn’t it? Forgive me-as a convert I also never learned much about them as a Southern Baptist.😃

A few questions/replies:
-They were esteemed by the Alexandrian Jews, weren’t they?
-Isn’t there argument about the state of the Syrian or Palestinian canon of the time?

-Philo, from what I’ve read, didn’t discuss many books of the Palestinian canon, either. It’s just the supposition that he would have discussed Wisdom, isn’t it?

-The clearly defined canon of the Old Testament was even held in varying levels of reverence or respect. I.e. the Law vs. prophets etc…

Again, I’m just curious for my own sake and not trying to start any kind of fight. I still forget about them from time to time:p
Click to expand...
Brian,

These are really good points. I will try to answer them as best I can, but in the interest of full disclosure these last points aren’t really my view…I was trying to round up the different view points I’ve heard from Protestants over the years and found this “and all others” list somewhere on the web (I’m not at my computer, so I can’t lay hands on where I got them at the moment) :o

Yes, I agree it’s not that easy. The fact that the Alexandrian Jews held them in esteem probably went a long way to the books being excluded…they were largely written in Greek and there it seems to me there was some contention that the originals weren’t written in Hebrew. Hellenist Jewish view points didn’t fair well in First Century Judaism as the comunity sought to define Judaism in the post-Temple environment (as I recall).

It is true that the books of the Jewish Canon (what PCs call the Old Testament) are held in different regard…so the argument can be made that the line of what is in and what is out could have logically extended to include the Apocrypha (I hope that term isn’t offensive, by the way…It was late when I wrote the first post and I didn’t stop to think that word means different things to different branches of the Christian family).

The Synod of Yavneh (around 90 AD?) did not pay too close attention to books of the TaNaKh. It seems they were more concerned with solidifying prayers in post-Temple Judaism and settling disputes of, and compromises between Pharisees, Sadducees, and other sects. I can’t speak intelligently to Syrian vs. Palestinian canons…I’d have to read up on that myself. I do recall that the Palestinian Talmud was abandoned later (unfinished) because the center of Jewish learning moved to another area, but I think that has little bearing on this discussion.

Either way, the status of these books doesn’t keep me up at night…I read them during my Bible studies because they were read widely in the early Church and were in most original PC Bibles. If they were good enough for the Church fathers and early PCs, they’re good enough for me. I don’t try to convince my PC sisters and brothers to accept them because they don’t rise to the level of the necessary for me.😉

I have thick skin and never take offense to other ideas / points of view expressed in a civil manner (as your’s are). The line of work I’m in, taking offense would be dangerous 😃 It forces me to examine what I think and distill my thought process.

God Bless and Joyous Sunday!
JW
 
lak611 said:
That is an excellent book. I have it. 👍
Click to expand...
I have that book to and just finished it. I wish he could have gone deeper and explaining the Book of Maccabees and the so called charges that it has historical errors.
 
Protestant_68 said:
I have thick skin and never take offense to other ideas / points of view expressed in a civil manner (as your’s are). The line of work I’m in, taking offense would be dangerous 😃 It forces me to examine what I think and distill my thought process.

God Bless and Joyous Sunday!
JW
Click to expand...
No worries, I’m by NO means an expert on anything, lol. I’m glad to discuss it in a civil atmosphere myself and just am curious. I, too, have a hard time understanding why the books were kinda cast off after being in the canon for so long. Being a convert, I’m always trying to reassure myself I made the right decision. 😃

But the whole thing just seems to be another regrettable side effect of a regrettable period in Christian history.
 
WOW, there are great resources in this thread. I wish I were smarter to be able to delve into these subjects.

What’s amazing is that the early Christian Church settled this so long ago, even without the internet (or personal computers, as far as technology goes).

There was an excellent thread on this websiste on how the deuterocanonicals are used in the New Testament. I must have looked at that at least two years ago. It was detailed and cited verse after verse where the d-c are cited. And, yes, Jesus was aware of them and used them. I believe that contradicts a previous post, but that’s the way it goes.

It might take me a while to come up with that thread. If and when I locate it, I’ll be back and post it.

OK, here is a link that was in a previous thread, that may serve as a starting point for illustrating the use of the d-c in the NT

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Having cited this, I know that there are those who take exception even to an illustration such as this. I seem to recall that the NT refers to the Book of Enoch which is unknown, I believe. The point being, that this reference would not, in itself, canonize the book of Enoch, even if it were found today.

Likewise, the book of Genesis would not automatically canonize earlier creation stories which seem to be quite similar in detail to the accounts there. We come down to the lesson of 1 Ti 3:15,

…the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Can any Protestant answer this one question–why should any group of Jews in 90AD

who reject Jesus and consider him absolutely dead in the ground and absolutely not God at all

have any say at all at what the Christians of that time who believed in Jesus as risen and God

should believe as the Word of God?

The Christians had been using the Septuagint for all of those years as the Holy Spirit was guiding the disciples into all truth just as Jesus had promised.

Now who’s right–the Holy Spirit guiding the disciples and Jesus promising that the Holy Spirit would do that?

Or the Jews who hated Jesus and thought that he wasn’t God and was dead?

Who gives a hoot what the “Jesus is dead” Jews of that time thought about anything?
Click to expand...
Jerry,

As ‘any Protestant’, I’ll try to answer 😉 Let me say up front though that I don’t particularly care whether these books are added or not. I see them as historically relevant and since they were included in the early Church and early PC Bibles I read them. I don’t give them the same full weight as inspired scripture just because Hellenist Jews included them and I’m unconvinced (jury is still out for me) they are referenced in the NT.

Early Jewish Christians still had ties to the Jewish community. PCs give credence to what they said because the early Church (particularly in Jerusalem and most of Israel) didn’t always use the Septuagint. Who better to decide what is Jewish (ie OT) than learned Jews? Remember, 90 AD Jews didn’t have a say on the NT (they DID define Judaism in such a way that excluded Jewish Christians from the larger Jewish community, but that’s a different story…)

Who’s right? As a Christian, I heartily say Jesus and the disciples. I’m not sure how this enters into it though. (“Do you like puppies or do you hate puppies?” doesn’t really offer much clarity on anything). Christians were concerned with living the new Faith. I’ve not read where they were too caught up on what should be in Torah scrolls. Now what should be in the NT? That was important.

Early Christians who were Jewish prior to coming to the faith didn’t always see themselves as completely separated from the Jews (there are examples of this interaction in the NT). They DID see themselves as the completion of the Jewish faith, but that does not necessarily exclude them from interacting with Jews. It makes sense they would look to the Jewish community to HELP determine what was orthodox OT books.

PC’s often ask why the books of the Bible for CCs weren’t officially enumerated until the Council of Trent (1546)? I’m not sure this is even true that this is the first time this occurred, but it’s the ‘buzz’ amongst PCs when this subject is brought up (which RARELY occurs).

God Bless and Joyous Sunday,
JW
 
Brian_C said:
No worries, I’m by NO means an expert on anything, lol. I’m glad to discuss it in a civil atmosphere myself and just am curious. I, too, have a hard time understanding why the books were kinda cast off after being in the canon for so long. Being a convert, I’m always trying to reassure myself I made the right decision. 😃

But the whole thing just seems to be another regrettable side effect of a regrettable period in Christian history.
Click to expand...
Brian, I’m no expert either…just someone with too much time on his hands at the moment 🙂

If you feel Jesus’ Love and are doing His Will, you made the right choice. I still have questions about where in the Christian Family I belong (otherwise, I woundn’t be here 😉 )

I agree that Church hsitory could have / should have been different. It causes me pain every day. I just hope and pray there’s a way for us to all united and whole again.

God Bless and Joyous Sunday,
JW
 
Crumpy said:
There was an excellent thread on this websiste on how the deuterocanonicals are used in the New Testament. I must have looked at that at least two years ago. It was detailed and cited verse after verse where the d-c are cited. And, yes, Jesus was aware of them and used them. I believe that contradicts a previous post, but that’s the way it goes.

It might take me a while to come up with that thread. If and when I locate it, I’ll be back and post it.

OK, here is a link that was in a previous thread, that may serve as a starting point for illustrating the use of the d-c in the NT

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Having cited this, I know that there are those who take exception even to an illustration such as this. I seem to recall that the NT refers to the Book of Enoch which is unknown, I believe. The point being, that this reference would not, in itself, canonize the book of Enoch, even if it were found today.

Likewise, the book of Genesis would not automatically canonize earlier creation stories which seem to be quite similar in detail to the accounts there. We come down to the lesson of 1 Ti 3:15,

…the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
Click to expand...
Crumpy,

Thanks for the above link and the mention of the Book of Enoch. I look forward to reaading them.

I’m not familar with Jesus mentioning the d-c, but then what I don’t know about the bible would fill volumes! If you (or anyone else) has these examples, I would love it if you posted them (thanks in advance).

God Bless and Joyous Sunday,
JW
 
In answer to some of the questions on this thread, I found some links concerning this topic:

To Protestant68: Look at:
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
This will give you all the references in the NT to the Septuigent.

Concerning the 7 books:
http://envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
This is about that jewish “council” in 90AD. It wasn’t a council to decide much of anything but how to carry on after the destruction of the temple and some other things not concerned with Christianity. There was talk about the book of Sirach and Ecclesiasticus (?) but not on a formal “Jewish canon.”

cathollic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

and finally

users.rcn.com/lanat/biblehistory.htm

I hope all of these are still up and running.

Someone commented on why the 7 books were not mentioned prior to Trent. They were in the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century and they are the same books canonized at Trent. All Trent did was reiterate the same defined books from the late 4th century because Luther was mangeling the bible and to close the canon, officially and state it in public Church documents once and for all.

Good reading!
 
DianJo said:
In answer to some of the questions on this thread, I found some links concerning this topic:

To Protestant68: Look at:
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
This will give you all the references in the NT to the Septuigent.

Concerning the 7 books:
http://envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
This is about that jewish “council” in 90AD. It wasn’t a council to decide much of anything but how to carry on after the destruction of the temple and some other things not concerned with Christianity. There was talk about the book of Sirach and Ecclesiasticus (?) but not on a formal “Jewish canon.”

cathollic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

and finally

users.rcn.com/lanat/biblehistory.htm

I hope all of these are still up and running.

Someone commented on why the 7 books were not mentioned prior to Trent. They were in the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century and they are the same books canonized at Trent. All Trent did was reiterate the same defined books from the late 4th century because Luther was mangeling the bible and to close the canon, officially and state it in public Church documents once and for all.

Good reading!
Click to expand...
Great! Thanks for the links and the info on the Councils of Hippo and Carthage 😉 I look forward to reading them.

I agree about the Synod of Yavneh…PCs bring this up when talking Canon, but it really didn’t have too much to say on this topic.

God Bless and Joyous Sunday,
JW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top