Deuterocanonical Books and the CC. What do we protestants lack?

[Esdra]

Hi all,

in another thread a discussion arose concerning the Deuterocanonical Books.

In the following the posts.

Read, and feel free to participate in our discussion.

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Hi,

yes, this is what I so much like about the Protestants! Most of them will say Book, Chapter and Verse when they read something out of the Bible.

And for me that’s very important, considering the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12:

"10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. "

in Christ,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

The Bereans were searching the messianic prophecies of the Greek Septuagint OT (abbreviated LXX) – the Scriptures of St. Paul and the Apostles. The LXX was used to evangelize the entire Mediterranean world in the first century. It’s prophecies substantiated that Jesus is the Messiah. The Septuagint is rejected by most Protestants. Go figure.

Chapters were added to the biblical text for the first time in 1227 by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury (when England was Catholic).

Verses were added by a (Catholic) French printer, Robert Estienne, in 1551.

So when Protestants quote chapter and verse, they are adding to the Word.

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[Esdra]

Hi,

I really don’t want to dispute with you here, Jim.

And by the way: I don’t think that in the books you call deuterocanonical and I call apocryphal are important prophesies that state that Christ is the Messiah… (if you want to: give me examples if you know any.)
By the way: You Catholics also don’t have the entire Septuagint (LXX) in your Old Testament! (1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Odes of Salomon [including the [COLOR=“Red”]Prayer of Manasseh

] and Psalms of Salomon here]) - Even the (Russian) Orthodox Church does not include all of them (the ones in black). (But it has another apocryphal book, called 2 Esdras which is from the appendix of the Vulgate by St. Jerome and is a kind of revelation - btw. very intersting to read! It can be found in the Catholic Edition of the NRSV for example!)

The New Testament is a selection of writings about Jesus (and letters of his apostles) written after his death - and was canonized by the “first Christians” - typically referred to as Catholic.

So what do we, Protestants, add here?

in Christ,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

The Orthodox have added to and Protestants have subtracted from the canon of the original Bible.

My point was that chapters and verses that you deem so essential are a fairly recent addition to the biblical text. and that the Bereans read St. Paul’s Septuagint that most Protestants reject. St. Paul considered it Scripture, but you (and others) do not.

Those first Christians who selected and canonized 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings and named them the New Testament – and canonized 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament – and named the Church’s entire collection of sacred writings “the Bible” – were Catholic Bishops. The Church was then nearly 400 years old.

Pax Christi,

Jim Dandy

 

[Esdra]

Hi,

no the Orthodox haven’t added anything (except maybe 2 Esdras). They use more or less the whole septuagint. (See my previous post to you).

The Protestants use the Jewish Canon. I don’t see where your problem is.
Or tell me one important story of the deuterocanonical books that we lack because we don’t use them and consider them as apocryphal.

The Bereans didn’t need the what we call NT now because they had the teachings of the Apostles (you’re so famous Tradition). - This was later on canonized and is now called the NT.

So, actually, I still don’t get your point…

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Excuse me for butting into the conversation here but as to the issue of the Deutero’s I would like to make two points.

The first is the specific point of what might be contained in them that protestants lack.
One example relates to Purgatory and Praying for the dead. Something clearly accepted by Catholics and rejected by the majority of Protesants.
From HERE
In 2 Macabees 12:44-46. In this passage Judas Macabee and his men had found, in the bodies of their fallen comrades, “tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the Law forbids the Jews to wear.” As a result, “they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which has been committed might be wholly blotted out…for if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead…Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” This passage shows the practice and attitude of the Jews before the time of Jesus. They PRAYED for their dead and still do today.
While It can be said that there is much in the Deuteros’ that is not essential, the same could be said for other OT books.

In a more general sense, the difference in the canon between the RC and the Protestants goes to the very core of Protestantism and it’s reliance on Sola or Prima Scriptura apart from the authority of The Church.
The Protestant “fathers” held Scripture (The Bible) up as THE rule of faith, God Breathed, and all that is necessary being contained therein.
Now when they said this, the Bible they (in the western church) were familiar with, the one they were holing up was the same one that was approved a millenia earlier. The one containing 73 books.
Yet early on, and continuing for some time, these same people who held up the “Holy Scriptures” as all that was needed, debated what constituted “Holy Scripture” first seperating out the deutero’s to their own section and finally dropping them from the bibles all together.
So - the very same people who hold up The Bible as the “Sole rule of Faith”, and quote (as you did earlier) 2 Tim 3:15, “All Scripture is God breathed…” as a justification, immediately began to restrict what was to be considered “All scripture” to less than what had been accepted as “All Scripture” by the Western church for 1000 years prior to the reformation.
In short, the Protestant Fathers Held up the Bible as the pure and ultimate Rule and then proceeded to change it.

Peace
James

 

[Esdra]

Hi

thank you for this post. That’s very intersting. I didn’t know that Purgatory and Praying for the Dead are scriptural (when you consider the deuterocanonical Books as part of the Holy Bible).
I’ve always thought that this is another part of Tradition (like the ascending of Mary into heaven).
I was really wondering when I’ve begun studying the Holy Bible more into details where the praying for the dead (and the linked purgatory), which both are essential for the Catholic belief, come from.
Now I know, thank you.
Are there any other parts in the deuterocanonical books that are of significance in Catholicism?

Esdra

 

[pablope]

Hi all,

in another thread a discussion arose concerning the Deuterocanonical Books.

In the following the posts.

Read, and feel free to participate in our discussion.

Esdra

Hi, Esdra,

Check this thread. The poster has video links explaining the differences in the Catholic and Protestant Bibles (the root, so to speak)…He provides a link. The videos are short, about 8 minutes each:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=517632

 

[Scoobyshme]

Esdra:
Well, just some thoughts that come to mind…

First, the Word of God is not a book. It is Jesus Christ. He is the Word of God. That Word, however, was transmitted to us in two main ways: Orally (first, and foremost) and, later, written. Jesus taught orally. He never wrote anything, with the exception of writing in the dust when they brought the woman caught in adultery to Him, as far as we know). And, He instructed the Apostles to do likewise (preaching and teaching ALL He taught them). See Matt. 28:20. Yet, even the Bible says that not ALL that Jesus did and taught is IN the Bible (See John 21:25). The part that’s not in the Bible is Oral Tradition (oral teaching, a.k.a., Holy Tradition). See 2 Thes 2:15. Also keep in mind that it’s only been in the last century that the majority of earth’s people could read and write. Before that, the vast majority were illiterate. So, a “Bible-reading” or “Bible-only” would have precluded the masses of humanity from the faith if Bible-reading was mandatory. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a good thing, provided one reads the Bible with the proper methodology. But it can be a bad thing if done wrong.

Second, the Bereans only had the Old Testament Scriptures through which to search since the New Testament wasn’t assembled till the 4th century by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (the Pope and bishops), who, at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) went through over 300 documents and selected 27 which we all call the “New Testament” now. So, they weren’t thumbing through the Gospels or Epistles of the New Testament then. (And a side note, the chapter and verse numbers weren’t added till the 1200’s).

Third, read the article at the following link that explains why the Bereans rejected the notion of “Sola Scriptura.” catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

You may also be interested in watching a video series on “Origin of the Bible” at the following link: (it’s all free) alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

God bless!

 

[JRKH]

Hi all,

in another thread a discussion arose concerning the Deuterocanonical Books.

In the following the posts.

Read, and feel free to participate in our discussion.

Esdra

Posted by Esdra:
Are there any other parts in the deuterocanonical books that are of significance in Catholicism?

While some have expressed concern with some of the references, THIS PAGE contains many references to the Deuteros’ found in both the NT and in the ECF’s.
Note especially where the ECF’s are referencing the deutero’s. This is before the offical setting of the canon. This shows that the Deutero’s were accepted as Scripture by the earliest Church, which would of course include St Paul when he stated that “ALL Scripture is God breathed…”

Peace
James

 

[WorkerPriest]

If I may, I’d like to add a bit of perspective.

Lumping in together all “protestants” is handy for apologetics, but not terribly helpful for discussing certain issues. Lutherans and Anglicans, for example, still read and respect the canon which includes the Septuagint. It is not common for Lutherans to build doctrine from the OT books which were not part of the OT Hebrew canon, but we still recognize them as useful for the Church and her people. Various Fathers shared this opinion.

I would also note, that Lutherans do not subscribe to a version of “Sola Scriptura” which is often pilloried here, where the Scriptures are divorced from the historic mind of the Church. We read the Fathers with the Holy Scriptures, and understand those Scriptures in light of genuine catholic tradition. We do not branch out with novelties in Biblical interpretation, but rather seek to maintain a catholic perspective. Hence our confessional use of the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils.

In terms of authenticating tradition, we use the Scriptures. There are different voices and opinions, even amongst the Fathers, and the ancient pattern of settling disputes was concilliar debate on what the Scriptures confessed. Lutherans seek to walk according to a similar synodality, settling disputes in councils and synods with the Holy Scriptures as the ultimiate arbiter. To our eyes, this looks very catholic and patristic.

A blessed Feast of St. Nicholas to you all.

Grace and peace.

 

[Scoobyshme]

If I may, I’d like to add a bit of perspective.

Lumping in together all “protestants” is handy for apologetics, but not terribly helpful for discussing certain issues. Lutherans and Anglicans, for example, still read and respect the canon which includes the Septuagint. It is not common for Lutherans to build doctrine from the OT books which were not part of the OT Hebrew canon, but we still recognize them as useful for the Church and her people. Various Fathers shared this opinion.

I would also note, that Lutherans do not subscribe to a version of “Sola Scriptura” which is often pilloried here, where the Scriptures are divorced from the historic mind of the Church. We read the Fathers with the Holy Scriptures, and understand those Scriptures in light of genuine catholic tradition. We do not branch out with novelties in Biblical interpretation, but rather seek to maintain a catholic perspective. Hence our confessional use of the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils.

In terms of authenticating tradition, we use the Scriptures. There are different voices and opinions, even amongst the Fathers, and the ancient pattern of settling disputes was concilliar debate on what the Scriptures confessed. Lutherans seek to walk according to a similar synodality, settling disputes in councils and synods with the Holy Scriptures as the ultimiate arbiter. To our eyes, this looks very catholic and patristic.

A blessed Feast of St. Nicholas to you all.

Grace and peace.

Actually, that’s a good point about the issue with lumping all Protestants together. There is so very much diversity within Protestantism with regard to what they believe, etc., that it’s difficult to group them as one and still be able to talk about a lot of details. However, one should still be able to talk about non-Catholic Christians in some general way at times, as to be somewhat useful. I just haven’t found a more convenient way…yet.

 

[JRKH]

Hi all,

in another thread a discussion arose concerning the Deuterocanonical Books.

In the following the posts.

Read, and feel free to participate in our discussion.

Esdra

Esdra,
I want to try to clarify what is perhaps the primary issue as regards the DC books in relation to their inclusion/exclusion in the bible.

You asked earlier what you protestants are missing by not having them. The short answer to that is the “fullness” of God’s written revelation.

In the other thread (that this one springs from) you mention that you accept that it was the “Early Catholics” who set the canon. Well those “Early Catholics” set the canon at 73 books. This was discussed and confirmed, without change, at no less than 6 councils - All before the reformation. If the Holy Spirit had seen some error in the original canon, He had ample opportuniteis to correct it before Luther came along…

Then came the “Reformation” and Luther, Calvin, et.al. decided that “The authoritative Church” was not needed, but only the Holy Scriptures Guided by the Holy Spirit (Sola Scriptura). But Luther did not agree with the canon as set at 73 books and sought to have certian books removed (including 4 books in the NT, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation). While he did not entirely succeed in this, he and the other reformers managed to set aside the Deutero’s and eventually they were dropped entirely from the protestant printings of the Bible.

Today Protestants Claim the 66 book bible as the complete Bible. They cite St Paul statement about “All Scripture…” (2 Tim 3:15) as evidence of the sufficiency of “The bible” and all the while tehy are using a bible that was tampered with and changed a mere 500 or so years ago.

Six councils of The Pre-reformation (united) Church approved a 73 book canon. Bascially one man changed it to a 66 book canon.
Which comes nearer to containing “All Scripture (that) is God Breathed…” based on the Will of the Holy Spirit?
Which group should you place your trust in to preserve, protect, defend, copy, and teach the “Holy Bible”, the group that has preserved it unchanged since ca 400 AD when it was first assembled, or the group that accepts one man’s tampering with the canon of Holy Scripture outside of Holy Mother Church.

If the Early Church got it right - then it’s right. If the early Church got it wrong, then how can you trust ANY of the canon, OT or NT?

Peace
James

 

[Alexander_Roman]

If I may, I’d like to add a bit of perspective.

Lumping in together all “protestants” is handy for apologetics, but not terribly helpful for discussing certain issues. Lutherans and Anglicans, for example, still read and respect the canon which includes the Septuagint. It is not common for Lutherans to build doctrine from the OT books which were not part of the OT Hebrew canon, but we still recognize them as useful for the Church and her people. Various Fathers shared this opinion.

I would also note, that Lutherans do not subscribe to a version of “Sola Scriptura” which is often pilloried here, where the Scriptures are divorced from the historic mind of the Church. We read the Fathers with the Holy Scriptures, and understand those Scriptures in light of genuine catholic tradition. We do not branch out with novelties in Biblical interpretation, but rather seek to maintain a catholic perspective. Hence our confessional use of the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils.

In terms of authenticating tradition, we use the Scriptures. There are different voices and opinions, even amongst the Fathers, and the ancient pattern of settling disputes was concilliar debate on what the Scriptures confessed. Lutherans seek to walk according to a similar synodality, settling disputes in councils and synods with the Holy Scriptures as the ultimiate arbiter. To our eyes, this looks very catholic and patristic.

A blessed Feast of St. Nicholas to you all.

Grace and peace.

Very Catholic and Patristic indeed!

A blessed Feast of St Nicholas to you as well!

Alex

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Esdra,
I want to try to clarify what is perhaps the primary issue as regards the DC books in relation to their inclusion/exclusion in the bible.

You asked earlier what you protestants are missing by not having them. The short answer to that is the “fullness” of God’s written revelation.

In the other thread (that this one springs from) you mention that you accept that it was the “Early Catholics” who set the canon. Well those “Early Catholics” set the canon at 73 books. This was discussed and confirmed, without change, at no less than 6 councils - All before the reformation. If the Holy Spirit had seen some error in the original canon, He had ample opportuniteis to correct it before Luther came along…

Then came the “Reformation” and Luther, Calvin, et.al. decided that “The authoritative Church” was not needed, but only the Holy Scriptures Guided by the Holy Spirit (Sola Scriptura). But Luther did not agree with the canon as set at 73 books and sought to have certian books removed (including 4 books in the NT, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation). While he did not entirely succeed in this, he and the other reformers managed to set aside the Deutero’s and eventually they were dropped entirely from the protestant printings of the Bible.

Today Protestants Claim the 66 book bible as the complete Bible. They cite St Paul statement about “All Scripture…” (2 Tim 3:15) as evidence of the sufficiency of “The bible” and all the while tehy are using a bible that was tampered with and changed a mere 500 or so years ago.

Six councils of The Pre-reformation (united) Church approved a 73 book canon. Bascially one man changed it to a 66 book canon.
Which comes nearer to containing “All Scripture (that) is God Breathed…” based on the Will of the Holy Spirit?
Which group should you place your trust in to preserve, protect, defend, copy, and teach the “Holy Bible”, the group that has preserved it unchanged since ca 400 AD when it was first assembled, or the group that accepts one man’s tampering with the canon of Holy Scripture outside of Holy Mother Church.

If the Early Church got it right - then it’s right. If the early Church got it wrong, then how can you trust ANY of the canon, OT or NT?

Peace
James

James,

To put it kindly, you’re spreading quite a bit of misinformation here. First, the councils of the “Early Catholics” that you cite were neither councils (in the sense of ecumenical councils) nor catholic (in the sense of universal) but rather local synods that met that decided on the canon for, at best, the Western church. Even that’s a debatable proposition. Because the churches of East were not at all involved in this decision, they unsurprising have had various canons that differ from the canon of the Western church. The picture you’re painting is that the church had one universal, uniform canon from the fourth century until the time of Martin Luther, which is just not the case.

Second, Martin Luther did not remove any books from the Bible, although he did put books for which he did not have a Hebrew source in a separate section. The “removal” was a much later development–even the original King James Bible has the deuterocanonical books. The idea that Martin Luther “sought to have certain books removed (including 4 books in the NT, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation)” is simply false. I will assume whatever source you’re relying on for this information is misleading you. If Martin Luther had wanted to exclude them (or the deuterocanonicals for that matter) from his translation of the Bible, he certainly could have done so.

Finally, you may want to read the comment “Protestants” by Worker Priest above your own. Protestants have various understandings of the canon that can’t be lumped together. The Revised Common Lectionary (the most commonly used lectionary among mainline Protestants) actually has more readings from the deuterocanonicals than does the Roman Catholic lectionary.

 

[Scoobyshme]

James,

To put it kindly, you’re spreading quite a bit of misinformation here. First, the councils of the “Early Catholics” that you cite were neither councils (in the sense of ecumenical councils) nor catholic (in the sense of universal) but rather local synods that met that decided on the canon for, at best, the Western church. Even that’s a debatable proposition. Because the churches of East were not at all involved in this decision, they unsurprising have had various canons that differ from the canon of the Western church. The picture you’re painting is that the church had one universal, uniform canon from the fourth century until the time of Martin Luther, which is just not the case.

Second, Martin Luther did not remove any books from the Bible, although he did put books for which he did not have a Hebrew source in a separate section. The “removal” was a much later development–even the original King James Bible has the deuterocanonical books. The idea that Martin Luther “sought to have certain books removed (including 4 books in the NT, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation)” is simply false. I will assume whatever source you’re relying on for this information is misleading you. If Martin Luther had wanted to exclude them (or the deuterocanonicals for that matter) from his translation of the Bible, he certainly could have done so.

Finally, you may want to read the comment “Protestants” by Worker Priest above your own. Protestants have various understandings of the canon that can’t be lumped together. The Revised Common Lectionary (the most commonly used lectionary among mainline Protestants) actually has more readings from the deuterocanonicals than does the Roman Catholic lectionary.

Dave, Dave, Dave…

Did you purposely leave out the fact that Martin Luther did **not **consider the deuteroncanonical books to be the “equal of Holy Scripture?” He separated them and placed them "between the Old and New Testaments. He claimed that they were good to read, but not the equal of Scripture. Read the section “Luther’s Bible” here: books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC05742122&id=rl3lcbLkHV0C&pg=PA521&lpg=PA521&dq=luther+%22are+useful+and+good+to+read%22#v=onepage&q=luther%20%22are%20useful%20and%20good%20to%20read%22&f=false

With regard to the churches of the East, etc., keep in mind that Kinko’s didn’t exist at that time, nor did the Internet. Things took time to spread. The authority of the Church, centered in Rome, however, was recognized. Yes, there were heretical groups that popped up from the very beginning, from time to time, but they considered themselves as members of the one Church, the Catholic Church. Those heresies were defeated, usually by Councils of the Church. Unfortunately, they still pop up again and again today, because the “person” behind them (Satan) has never gone away. He just keeps disguising them as “something else” (which they’re not) like a person who just can’t dress right, and keeps changing into different odd outfits of mismatched clothing, trying to seek acceptance among the “normal.”

 

[Robert_in_SD]

James,

To put it kindly, you’re spreading quite a bit of misinformation here. First, the councils of the “Early Catholics” that you cite were neither councils (in the sense of ecumenical councils) nor catholic (in the sense of universal) but rather local synods that met that decided on the canon for, at best, the Western church. Even that’s a debatable proposition. Because the churches of East were not at all involved in this decision, they unsurprising have had various canons that differ from the canon of the Western church. The picture you’re painting is that the church had one universal, uniform canon from the fourth century until the time of Martin Luther, which is just not the case.

Second, Martin Luther did not remove any books from the Bible, although he did put books for which he did not have a Hebrew source in a separate section. The “removal” was a much later development–even the original King James Bible has the deuterocanonical books. The idea that Martin Luther “sought to have certain books removed (including 4 books in the NT, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation)” is simply false. I will assume whatever source you’re relying on for this information is misleading you. If Martin Luther had wanted to exclude them (or the deuterocanonicals for that matter) from his translation of the Bible, he certainly could have done so.

Finally, you may want to read the comment “Protestants” by Worker Priest above your own. Protestants have various understandings of the canon that can’t be lumped together. The Revised Common Lectionary (the most commonly used lectionary among mainline Protestants) actually has more readings from the deuterocanonicals than does the Roman Catholic lectionary.

There is a very thorough discussion of the deuterocanonicals and their convluted history in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is a small part of it that discusses the Councils that addressed the issue in the Western Church:

The Council of Florence (1442)
In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine. The “Decretum pro Jacobitis” contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.

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.

The Vatican Council (1870)
The great constructive Synod of Trent had put the sacredness and canonicity of the whole traditional Bible forever beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. By implication it had defined that Bible’s plenary inspiration also. The Vatican Council took occasion of a recent error on inspiration to remove any lingering shadow of uncertainty on this head; it formally ratified the action of Trent and explicitly defined the Divine inspiration of all the books with their parts.

The full text of the discussion can be read here.

I think that at the very least what we know from history shows us that the postion taken by Martin Luther was novel, and that it arose in part because of his rejection of long held Catholic doctrine - specifically purgatory.

Peace,
Robert

 

[JRKH]

James,
To put it kindly, you’re spreading quite a bit of misinformation here.

I look forward to your correction.

First, the councils of the “Early Catholics” that you cite were neither councils (in the sense of ecumenical councils) nor catholic (in the sense of universal) but rather local synods that met that decided on the canon for, at best, the Western church. Even that’s a debatable proposition. Because the churches of East were not at all involved in this decision, they unsurprising have had various canons that differ from the canon of the Western church. The picture you’re painting is that the church had one universal, uniform canon from the fourth century until the time of Martin Luther, which is just not the case.

Lets’ take this one thing at a time. A Council is when a group of people get together to discuss debate and “give and take council” with each other. Using the term “synods” is fine but it does not change the councilior nature of the gatherings.
As for the Easter Churches, my source says that the same canonical list was approved for use in the Easter Churches at the Council of Niecea in 787 AD. True the Eastern Churches use a canon that includes additional books and frankly, as a Catholic, I don’t see a problem with this.
The one thing that comes out of any and all of this is that The Church, acting in council and guided by the Holy Spirit, never approved canon of fewer than 73 books. Not once in the 1500 year history of The Church, East or West, was a 66 book canon ever approved.

Second, Martin Luther did not remove any books from the Bible, although he did put books for which he did not have a Hebrew source in a separate section. The “removal” was a much later development–even the original King James Bible has the deuterocanonical books. The idea that Martin Luther “sought to have certain books removed (including 4 books in the NT, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation)” is simply false. I will assume whatever source you’re relying on for this information is misleading you. If Martin Luther had wanted to exclude them (or the deuterocanonicals for that matter) from his translation of the Bible, he certainly could have done so.

I guess I wasn’t entirely clear on this. What I actually said was he had teh deutero’s set aside. Which he did by placing them in a seperate section betweent he OT and NT and expressly declaring that they should not be to be as reliable as the rest of Scripture. It was others, acting on this idea who later remived tehm altogether.
At tot he books in the NT, I don’t have the sources handy but I expressly remember that he refered to James as “the Epistle of Straw” and considered Revelation, “incomprehensable”.
Overall, my point to the OP is that the bible used by Protestants today and held up as “The Complete Scripture” is a book that was tampered with more than 1000 years after it was first “canonized”.

Finally, you may want to read the comment “Protestants” by Worker Priest above your own. Protestants have various understandings of the canon that can’t be lumped together. The Revised Common Lectionary (the most commonly used lectionary among mainline Protestants) actually has more readings from the deuterocanonicals than does the Roman Catholic lectionary.

I agree that lumping protestants together is bad form and I apologize. Yet I know of no protestant denomination who uses a 73 book canon. And regardless of what is included in the,“Revised Common Lectionary”, I suspect that every protestant asked will point to the 66 book Bible as being “The Word of God”.
Also, Esdra is a member of a “Free Evangelical Church” who, as far as I know, have never been big on using anything outside of the 66 book canon.
Perhaps his local community is different.

Peace
James

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Here’s a statement from the council that closed the canon.

Decree of Pope Damasus I: the Council of Rome (382 A.D.)
Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts
and what she ought to shun.
The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one
book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one
book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs
one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book,
Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with
Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one
book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias
one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the
histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book,
Machabees two books.
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic
Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book,
according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number
fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to
the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to
Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the
Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles,
of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two
epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle. The canon of the New Testament ends here. (Henry Denzinger,
The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 33-34).

This was the canon until Luther demoted the 7 deuterocanons to something like “not equal with holy scripture, but good for reading”. After he demoted the 7 books he argued that prayer for the dead and purgatory had no scriptural foundation.

“There is no proof of Purgatory in any portion of Sacred Scripture, which can enter into the argument, and serve as a proof; for the book of Maccabees not being in the Canon, is of weight with the faithful, but avails nothing with the obstinate.” (Luther, cited in Breen, General Introduction, 516)

Also I believe there was a short period where he wanted to get rid of James calling it “an epistle of straw”, but he changed his views on that. Here’s another quote of Luther on
2 Macc:

“I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice.” (Luther, cited in Bruce, Canon, 101)