Did Catholics add 7 books to Bible in 1546?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mo3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mo3

Guest
I saw the following statement on a Christian Apologetic website:

“In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. I need to add here that Roman Catholicism maintains that the apocrypha was always inspired along with the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches.”

See it at: carm.org/questions/canon.htm
 
Well if our Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian brothers agree that the Apocrypha were inspired , then it only stands to reason that they must have been recognised as such well before the splits between these churches and Catholicism. :rolleyes: - and how early on did the break with the Copts and Armenians occur???

I find it more interesting that Luther attempted, along with the above apocryphal books, to remove the epistle of James from the NEW Testament, calling it an ‘epistle of straw’. Conveniently for him this was the book that contained the ‘faith is dead without works’ passage.

I believe Jesus himself in the Gospels either quoted from or alluded to one or more of the Apocrypha, so there is every reason to include them in the canon. There are threads on CAF on this if you want to search.
 
No.

What happened was that, up until the time of the Council of Trent, we never had an “official” canon of the Old Testament. We simply carried on using the same one that Jesus and the Apostles used, generation after generation.

At some point in their history (many people say that it was at Jamnia in 90 AD, but if you ask most Jews, they’ve never even heard of this) the Jews established something called the Palestinian canon of Scripture, which has the 36 books that Protestants find in their Old Testament, today.

This canon was in existence at the time of Jerome*, but it did not yet exist in the time of Christ or during the lifetime of most of the writers of the New Testament - at least, they don’t seem to be aware of it, since they quote entirely from the Alexandrian canon of the Scriptures. (We know that because of minor but telling differences in translation between the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon, which I’m not really qualified to get into in any depth.)

The Catholic Church was never affected by that post-Pentecost decision of the Jews - we continued on with the same Old Testament that had been in use at the time of Christ, which was called the Septuagint, or, less formally, the Alexandrian canon. We figured if it was good enough for Jesus, then it was probably good enough for the Church.

However.

Somewhere along the line, the Protestants decided that they wanted to use the Palestinian canon of the Scriptures. (There were various reasons, some of which actually sound fairly plausible.) Because of this development, the Council of Trent had to decide which canon was the “authentic” canon of the Old Testament. They decided (and this is a typically Catholic line of reasoning) that they would go with the one that a) had been used by Jesus and the Apostles, and b) had been used by every serious Christian Scripture scholar since the time of Christ. Call it “tradition,” call it habit, whatever - they decided to go with “what we’ve always done,” since the time of Christ. Tradition. They didn’t see any reason to get innovative with the Scriptures, so they declared, defined, and pronounced that the canon of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible shall include the 43 books of the Alexandrian canon of Scripture, just like in the Vulgate Bible.

*We know that St. Jerome was aware of the Palestinian canon, because at one point during his research into the subject, he became convinced that the Palestinian canon was the proper canon to use for his Vulgate translation of the Bible. After further researching the issue, and after consulting with the Pope, he changed his mind and went with the Alexandrian canon, and to this day, his Vulgate Bible includes all 43 books of the Alexandrian canon.

We know that St. Jerome did this on the basis of good scholarship, because from his other writings, we know that he knew exactly what he was doing when he translated that Bible, and how important it was going to be to the future of the Church. He knew perfectly well that this was going to be the written Word of God henceforth and forever more, until the end of the world. So, if he’d had any real problems with including all 43 books (after having done his homework on the issue), you can bet he would have voiced them, loud and clear, and that if he had remained convinced that those books were “non-Biblical” he would certainly not have included them in his Bible. That he did include them shows us that, ultimately, he came to believe them to be Biblical.
 
jmcrae said:
No.

What happened was that, up until the time of the Council of Trent, we never had an “official” canon of the Old Testament. .
Click to expand...
The Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1439 also did it:

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.

piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm
 
No, Catholics did not add to the Bible in 1546, which would have been the Council of Trent. What Catholics did do is to once again reaffirm what books did belong in the Bible in the Council of Trent.

There have been councils that have listed the books in the Bible. The Council of Hippo (393 AD), the Council of Carthage (397 AD), the Council of Florence (1442) also listed the books of the Bible. Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens list the Decree of Pope Damasus, which has a list of the books in the Bible. This is otherwise known as the Council of Rome. It was wrote in 382 AD.
catholic-legate.com/card/scripture/card-canonicity-damasus.html

I don’t remember off hand which work of his it was (maybe someone else knows ?) but St Augustine also wrote down what books were in the Bible and it was the same list we, as Catholics, have today. This site gives a good list of all the councils.
catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
Above is the Council of Florence. Go down to session 11. That is were the books are listed.

Simple put, the claim that it wasn’t until 1546 that Catholics added to the Bible is false. Their is very clear evidence that says otherwise.
 
Also, don’t forget the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I in 382 AD:

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.

The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, 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 list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
🙂
 
I have heard that it would be possible in the future for the Catholic Church to accept the three books that are in the Ortodox cannon because they have never been pronounced as being heretical.

Is this true?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I have heard that it would be possible in the future for the Catholic Church to accept the three books that are in the Ortodox cannon because they have never been pronounced as being heretical.

Is this true?
Click to expand...
I doubt it. I am under the impression that the canon of the Old Testament was closed once and for all at Trent.
 
jmcrae said:
I doubt it. I am under the impression that the canon of the Old Testament was closed once and for all at Trent.
Click to expand...
Trent doesn’t anathematize those who accept more books, just those who reject the one’s it lists:

after listing them, it says:

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

If I remember correctly, the Eastern Catholics might use the additional books.
 
That was clear, concise, informative and accurate. I loved it.

One little point that ought to be added about Jerome’s Vulgate, however, is that he did actually label the ‘deuterocanonical’ portions of the text as such in his prologues, and classed them as ‘for the edification of the church but not for the determination of dogma’. Those caveats are still in the Vulgate today, although I have yet to find an online edition which bothers to show them.

Note similarly his defence of the ‘apocryphal’ portions of Daniel in his Against Rufinus. In section 2.33, he defends them not on the basis that they are ‘correct’, but on the basis that ‘the churches’ demanded them. Then, in section 2.34, he goes on to re-state his preference for Hebrew texts.

Jerome was a good scholar; he never accepted what he could not prove to be right, nor rejected what he could not prove to be wrong.
 
mo3 said:
I saw the following statement on a Christian Apologetic website:

“In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. I need to add here that Roman Catholicism maintains that the apocrypha was always inspired along with the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches.”

See it at: carm.org/questions/canon.htm
Click to expand...
Its more of the Great Protestant Subtraction 😉
 
From what I’ve heard and read its the Protestant Reformation that got rid of those seven books(because the Jewish religion did and they wanted to seperate themselves as much from Catholicism as they could) and the Council of Trent was simply an affirmation by the Church on their beliefs and books they used to clarify their position in the confusion. Thats what I get from it.
 
The REAL bottom line is if you could go into a Jewish temple in Jesus’ day and go check out the scrolls of scripture there you would have found the deuterocanonical books!

Jesus didn’t throw them out! if He didn’t throw them out why should we listen to anybody that thinks they should be thrown out?!

His Church didn’t believe they should be thrown out.

That’s good enough for me!
 
The Christian Apologetic website also claims the following:

“we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals.”

Is this true and do the 6,000 copies have the Apocrypha?
 
Please be aware, that although I have never visited the site, Carm is known to be a very anti-Catholic site. Take what you read there with several grains of salt and, as you have done here, check it out with reliable Catholic sources.

Peace,
Linda
 
mo3 said:
I saw the following statement on a Christian Apologetic website:

“In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. I need to add here that Roman Catholicism maintains that the apocrypha was always inspired along with the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches.”

See it at: carm.org/questions/canon.htm
Click to expand...
The site Charm has nothing but a lot of ant-Catholics,the only books Catholics add was the 27 books that is now called the New Testment,Martin Luther was the one that omit the books for the old T
 
jmcrae said:
At some point in their history (many people say that it was at Jamnia in 90 AD, but if you ask most Jews, they’ve never even heard of this) the Jews established something called the Palestinian canon of Scripture, which has the 36 books that Protestants find in their Old Testament, today.
Click to expand...
Also note that the Jewish celebration, Hannukah, is based on a story not contained in the Palestinian canon, but it is in the Septuagent.
 
RCCDefender said:
Also note that the Jewish celebration, Hannukah, is based on a story not contained in the Palestinian canon, but it is in the Septuagent.
Click to expand...
Yes, good point. Also, “the Jews” is kind of a misleading term, since there are several different groups who more or less follow Jewish tradition, and each has its own canon of Scripture, ranging from the five books of Moses, to something like 50 or 60 different scrolls of Scripture - there isn’t really anyone in Judaism who has the authority to define a specific canon of Scripture - it’s pretty much up to the local community.
 
This thread is very timely. We’ve just been discussing the Canon at my Missouri Synod Lutheran school. And I have a timeline we were forced to study and memorize. I know there were some problems and my teacher constantly said over and over again “The Apocryphal books are useful but they were never considered part of Scripture” Is there any evidence before the 4th century that proves that the deuterocanonical books were recognized as part of Scripture? Besides that Jesus quoted them?
By the way, here’s the timeline we were forced to memorize. Just thought you could critique and offer your insight on that too.

Canon Timeline
Code: 
 -1450 BC: Moses writes Pentateauch
 - 425 BC: Last book of Old Testament (Malachi) is written
 - 30 AD: Jesus dies
 - 90 AD: Council of Jamnia affirms Old Testament Canon
 - 95 AD: John writes Revelation
 - 110 AD: Most of the New Testament Canon completed
 - 140 AD: Marcian complies "formal" canon
 - 200 AD: FORMAL Canon circulated 
 - 332 AD: Bibles comissioned + circulated by Constantine
Oh and something else I thought I might add. These are the categories of consideration for inclusion in the Canon we were to study. Offer your own opinion on this also.
Code: 
    -*Homo legomena*: accepted as inspired
    -*Ante legomena*: not immeditaely accepted
    -Heretical: never accepted
    -Apocryphal books
 
salvereginadude said:
This thread is very timely. We’ve just been discussing the Canon at my Missouri Synod Lutheran school. And I have a timeline we were forced to study and memorize. I know there were some problems and my teacher constantly said over and over again “The Apocryphal books are useful but they were never considered part of Scripture” Is there any evidence before the 4th century that proves that the deuterocanonical books were recognized as part of Scripture? Besides that Jesus quoted them?
Click to expand...
So if some Church fathers use quotes from them before the 4th century, would that be evidence ? But I don’t know why that would convince you if Jesus quoting them doesn’t…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top