Do Catholics have an incomplete canon?

[rben20]

Hello Catholics,

I was comparing bible canons with protestants and Orthodox yesterday and got a little curious. Hopefully you all can help me out. Now I know protestants have 7 missing books from the bible on the account of luther and obviously some needed to be removed in order for luther’s theology to hold weight in Scripture. We can say then that the bible of protestants is largely incomplete and was edited by a man.

The Orthodox though have more books than us. I was wondering why the Roman Catholic Bible does not have 3rd Maccabees and 4th Maccabees, also Esdras. Now I don’t believe there is much an argument here between Orthodox and Catholics, but why is it that we don’t have these books?

Thanks!

Rudy

 

[Verbum]

Hi Rudy,

First of all, not all Orthodox agree on the extra books you mention. Then there is no doubt that the Catholic position is firm, especially since the council of Trent. There will be no additions to the Bible.

Lastly, this is not a big issue among Catholics and Orthodox, God grant that it would be the only issue that separates us.

Verbum

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hello Catholics,

Now I know protestants have 7 missing books from the bible on the account of luther and obviously some needed to be removed in order for luther’s theology to hold weight in Scripture. We can say then that the bible of protestants is largely incomplete and was edited by a man.

The Orthodox though have more books than us. I was wondering why the Roman Catholic Bible does not have 3rd Maccabees and 4th Maccabees, also Esdras. Now I don’t believe there is much an argument here between Orthodox and Catholics, but why is it that we don’t have these books?

Thanks!

Rudy

If you want to argue that Luther “removed” books from the Bible (a falsehood that seems to circulate a lot here at CAF) then you need to explain why Catholics “removed” books from the Septuagint, such as Esdras, 3rd Maccabees, etc.

 

[rben20]

If you want to argue that Luther “removed” books from the Bible (a falsehood that seems to circulate a lot here at CAF) then you need to explain why Catholics “removed” books from the Septuagint, such as Esdras, 3rd Maccabees, etc.

Well Dave please reread my OP, why do you think I’m asking? I’m being honest and want to know, hence the question. If you study Church history you will find that there was only one Church as Jesus only founded one and this Church held of great importance to teach uniformly (hence Catholic, meaning universal). Because of the vast amounts of Scripture circulating at the time, the Church naturally wanted uniform writings to be used throughout the Church wherever they resided. The earliest Church council I know of to decide the complete uniform canon was the Council of Rome in 382ad under Pope Damasus I. It was later affirmed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage by other Bishops…this being the Catholic canon as we know today. Ultimately, I respect the Church’s decision as I believe it to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Apostolic, but I would like to know why these books were not included.

As far as the books from Septuagint that some Orthodox have and others don’t, the Orthodox I have talked to do not see it as a big deal. No, the Church did not remove books like Luther. Totally different as there was no official canon from the Church yet so how could anything be “removed” if there was yet no decree from the Church? Though I respect the Church’s decision ultimately, I would like to know what factors led to them not being included into the Church canon. So please, stay on topic.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well Dave please reread my OP, why do you think I’m asking? I’m being honest and want to know, hence the question. If you study Church history you will find that there was only one Church as Jesus only founded one and this Church held of great importance to teach uniformly (hence Catholic, meaning universal). Because of the vast amounts of Scripture circulating at the time, the Church naturally wanted uniform writings to be used throughout the Church wherever they resided. The earliest Church council I know of to decide the complete uniform canon was the Council of Rome in 382ad under Pope Damasus I. It was later affirmed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage by other Bishops…this being the Catholic canon as we know today. Ultimately, I respect the Church’s decision as I believe it to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Apostolic, but I would like to know why these books were not included.

As far as the books from Septuagint that some Orthodox have and others don’t, the Orthodox I have talked to do not see it as a big deal. No, the Church did not remove books like Luther. Totally different as there was no official canon from the Church yet so how could anything be “removed” if there was yet no decree from the Church? Though I respect the Church’s decision ultimately, I would like to know what factors led to them not being included into the Church canon. So please, stay on topic.

The simple answer is that some of the books that were considered important and used liturgically in the East were not in the West–and thus were not included in the Western canon. Obviously, the Eastern churches did not accept the results of the councils you cite, or our canons would be identical. Hence, I think it’s very problematic to argue that these decisions carry the full weight of apostolic authority; it’s clear by history and simple comparison that canonicity is not one of those uniform teachings you are searching for. And certainly this lack of uniformity went on for a thousand years or more without it being a major issue between East and West as well as among the various Eastern churches.

Luther didn’t remove books, as I already observed above. If anything you should really ask yourself why certain Catholics persist in this calumny and perhaps you’ll have the answer to your question. What I’m saying is, if you want to disparage Martin Luther for having done something that he didn’t actually do, then it’s only fair to hold the Catholic Church to the same standard in explaining why their shorter OT canon is different from the Septuagint.

The Orthodox churches have always taken a more “live and let live” approach when it comes to canon–you have yours, we have ours. It’s only in the West that this has turned polemical.

 

[rben20]

The simple answer is that some of the books that were considered important and used liturgically in the East were not in the West–and thus were not included in the Western canon. Obviously, the Eastern churches did not accept the results of the councils you cite, or our canons would be identical. Hence, I think it’s very problematic to argue that these decisions carry the full weight of apostolic authority; it’s clear by history and simple comparison that canonicity is not one of those uniform teachings you are searching for. And certainly this lack of uniformity went on for a thousand years or more without it being a major issue between East and West as well as among the various Eastern churches.

Luther didn’t remove books, as I already observed above. If anything you should really ask yourself why certain Catholics persist in this calumny and perhaps you’ll have the answer to your question. What I’m saying is, if you want to disparage Martin Luther for having done something that he didn’t actually do, then it’s only fair to hold the Catholic Church to the same standard in explaining why their shorter OT canon is different from the Septuagint.

The Orthodox churches have always taken a more “live and let live” approach when it comes to canon–you have yours, we have ours. It’s only in the West that this has turned polemical.

Alrighty Dave…

If you want me to be technical I will. Luther kept the deuterocanonical (circa 16th century term) books of the bible in his German translation. He did however remove them from the Old Testament and put it in between the New and Old Testaments and was not to be considered worthy as the other Scriptures as it was deemed “apocrypha” meaning false writings. Never mind the fact that for over 1,100 years, people accepted the early councils of the 4th century on the canon of Scripture and used it in the Church readings along the protocanonical books (16th century term).

Nevertheless, all protestant sects that broke and started their own churches followed Luther’s example of not considering the deuterocanonical books as worthy Scripture and chose not to include it in their canon much less print it in any part of their bibles. Thus we end up with 66 in protestant bibles and 73 in catholic ones.

Point being…the books were eventually removed as a result of Luther’s protest against the Church. Luther still removed them one way or the other. Just because Luther kept them in the Bible for old times sake doesn’t mean he didn’t remove them from teaching and theology which he of course did…they were no longer treated the same as they had been in the Church for 1,100 years. Coincidentally enough…one of the books deemed "apocrypha"proves the need to pray for the dead, hence a purgatory. How bout them apples…

And please don’t make this a West and East issue…we have already told you that there is not major disagreement when it comes to canon of Scripture. This is only with protestants of which Catholic and Orthodox have a problem with.

 

[lutherlic]

Alrighty Dave…

If you want me to be technical I will. Luther kept the deuterocanonical (circa 16th century term) books of the bible in his German translation. He did however remove them from the Old Testament and put it in between the New and Old Testaments and was not to be considered worthy as the other Scriptures as it was deemed “apocrypha” meaning false writings. Never mind the fact that for over 1,100 years, people accepted the early councils of the 4th century on the canon of Scripture and used it in the Church readings along the protocanonical books (16th century term).

Nevertheless, all protestant sects that broke and started their own churches followed Luther’s example of not considering the deuterocanonical books as worthy Scripture and chose not to include it in their canon much less print it in any part of their bibles. Thus we end up with 66 in protestant bibles and 73 in catholic ones.

Point being…the books were eventually removed as a result of Luther’s protest against the Church. Luther still removed them one way or the other. Just because Luther kept them in the Bible for old times sake doesn’t mean he didn’t remove them from teaching and theology which he of course did…they were no longer treated the same as they had been in the Church for 1,100 years. Coincidentally enough…one of the books deemed "apocrypha"proves the need to pray for the dead, hence a purgatory. How bout them apples…

And please don’t make this a West and East issue…we have already told you that there is not major disagreement when it comes to canon of Scripture. This is only with protestants of which Catholic and Orthodox have a problem with.

Thanks for noting that rben20, I was about to if no one else did. Luther also removed portions of Esther and Daniel. I also read that he briefly removed (or demoted by moving and labeling as apocrypha) Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Some of Luther’s followers at the time also wanted to remove 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John).

Dave, is this correct or can you give any clarification?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Thanks for noting that rben20, I was about to if no one else did. Luther also removed portions of Esther and Daniel. I also read that he briefly removed (or demoted by moving and labeling as apocrypha) Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Some of Luther’s followers at the time also wanted to remove 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John).

Dave, is this correct or can you give any clarification?

I’ll try to address both of these last two comments together.

Luther had a fairly quirky (for his time) biblical theology which was based on his view that not all parts of the Bible are equally important, so he had a kind of ranking system for the various books of the Bible. HOWEVER, as far as I know Luther never labelled Hebrews, James, Jude or Revelation as apocrypha, nor did he “remove” them at any time–but lutherlic if you have a reliable source that says otherwise I’d be interested in seeing it. Same for the other books you’ve mentioned. (How would one “briefly remove” them I wonder?) At least for Luther, it’s all always been part of the book called “The Bible.”

Actually, Luther commissioned elaborate woodcuts as illustrations for the Book of Revelation (the only book of the Bible which was so illustrated)–plus this book was key to his attack against the Church–so he would have never “removed” it. Though he did admit that the Book of Revelation was pretty mystifying.

The observation about Esther and Daniel is more of an issue of translation that that of protest against the church. If one doesn’t have an original language manuscript and the project you’ve set for yourself is to prepare a translation into German from the original languages, you’re sort of stuck This is basically the same problem that Jerome ran into with his Latin translation–for the same reason–there’s no Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript available, only Greek ones–which Luther and Jerome (probably erroneously) assumed were translations. But I honestly don’t know whether Luther translated the longer Daniel and Esther versions as he did the other deutercanonicals, I’m guessing probably not, but I could be wrong.

And of course, this still leaves on the table my observation that there has never been an uniform biblical canon between East and West (thus the councils cited were probably unknown or simply ignored in the East).

Also, most Anglican churches accept the deuterocanonical books with Jerome’s stipulations. The Revised Common Lectionary (far and away the most widely used Protestant lectionary) contains readings from the Deuterocanonical books, which are publicly declared to be the “Word of God” in some manner.

Actually, it would be an interesting research project to find out which lectionary has more Sunday readings from the deuteros–the Catholic Lectionary or the Revised Common Lectionary.

The statement “all protestant sects that broke and started their own churches followed Luther’s example of not considering the deuterocanonical books as worthy Scripture …” needs some glossing. Protestantism (if there even is such a thing) is extremely diverse and anything following the phrase “all Protestants…” will likely be an overgeneralization. Somewhere there will be a significant portion of Protestantism that will disagree with pretty much any statement.

“Apocrypha” means “hidden” not “false writing”.

Also, Luther and his followers did not have had a problems with prayers for the dead, per se. See the Augsburg Confession, Article 24, 94 and Works of Martin Luther Vol 37, p. 369. Luther did have a theological problem with applying the merits of the Mass to the dead–but of course he would say this is not an issue specifically addressed in the Books of Maccabees. So implying that because II Maccabees cites prayers for the dead Luther decided to label it “apocryphal” doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[rben20]

Thanks for noting that rben20, I was about to if no one else did. Luther also removed portions of Esther and Daniel. I also read that he briefly removed (or demoted by moving and labeling as apocrypha) Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Some of Luther’s followers at the time also wanted to remove 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John).

Dave, is this correct or can you give any clarification?

Hey, no problem. Keeping it real I just think its silly to get so technical when either way they were in fact removed and treated differently. Luther didn’t stop there you are correct Lutherlic. I’m not sure as to the exact books, but Luther definitely contested Hebrews, James and Revelation. He even went as far as to call James “an epistle of straw” Any Catholic apologist will tell you that James specifically refutes faith alone as it is the only place in Scripture where it appears…and it says NOT by faith alone. Luther squirmed in his pants I’m sure as that is the very man made theology he was trying to prove. He even added the word “alone” to romans 3:28 having to do with faith as he felt that was what the epistle was trying to convey. He did this to several verses in romans actually since most of the epistle talkes about faith (and can be twisted to be alone), but of course he was heavily criticized for doing this. Nevertheless, he didn’t go through with it, but the man made theology of sola fide still lives today. How anyone could be a lutheran or any other protestant, I don’t know…ignorance of the facts maybe, but seriously…this is largely the father of protestantism.

 

[rben20]

I’ll try to address both of these last two comments together.

Luther had a fairly quirky (for his time) biblical theology which was based on his view that not all parts of the Bible are equally important, so he had a kind of ranking system for the various books of the Bible. HOWEVER, as far as I know Luther never labelled Hebrews, James, Jude or Revelation as apocrypha, nor did he “remove” them at any time–but lutherlic if you have a reliable source that says otherwise I’d be interested in seeing it. Same for the other books you’ve mentioned. (How would one “briefly remove” them I wonder?) At least for Luther, it’s all always been part of the book called “The Bible.”

Actually, Luther commissioned elaborate woodcuts as illustrations for the Book of Revelation (the only book of the Bible which was so illustrated)–plus this book was key to his attack against the Church–so he would have never “removed” it. Though he did admit that the Book of Revelation was pretty mystifying.

The observation about Esther and Daniel is more of an issue of translation that that of protest against the church. If one doesn’t have an original language manuscript and the project you’ve set for yourself is to prepare a translation into German from the original languages, you’re sort of stuck This is basically the same problem that Jerome ran into with his Latin translation–for the same reason–there’s no Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript available, only Greek ones–which Luther and Jerome (probably erroneously) assumed were translations. But I honestly don’t know whether Luther translated the longer Daniel and Esther versions as he did the other deutercanonicals, I’m guessing probably not, but I could be wrong.

And of course, this still leaves on the table my observation that there has never been an uniform biblical canon between East and West (thus the councils cited were probably unknown or simply ignored in the East).

Also, most Anglican churches accept the deuterocanonical books with Jerome’s stipulations. The Revised Common Lectionary (far and away the most widely used Protestant lectionary) contains readings from the Deuterocanonical books, which are publicly declared to be the “Word of God” in some manner.

Actually, it would be an interesting research project to find out which lectionary has more Sunday readings from the deuteros–the Catholic Lectionary or the Revised Common Lectionary.

The statement “all protestant sects that broke and started their own churches followed Luther’s example of not considering the deuterocanonical books as worthy Scripture …” needs some glossing. Protestantism (if there even is such a thing) is extremely diverse and anything following the phrase “all Protestants…” will likely be an overgeneralization. Somewhere there will be a significant portion of Protestantism that will disagree with pretty much any statement.

“Apocrypha” means “hidden” not “false writing”.

Also, Luther and his followers did not have had a problems with prayers for the dead, per se. See the Augsburg Confession, Article 24, 94 and Works of Martin Luther Vol 37, p. 369. Luther did have a theological problem with applying the merits of the Mass to the dead–but of course he would say this is not an issue specifically addressed in the Books of Maccabees. So implying that because II Maccabees cites prayers for the dead Luther decided to label it “apocryphal” doesn’t make any sense to me.

Man Dave you are so technical today! Apocrypha does mean hidden yes, but it also means spurious…meaning FALSE. No way around the bush my friend.

Hebrews, James, Jude or Revelation were never labelled Apocrypha you are correct, but did you know that they were contested by Luther? Not surprising as the early Church did as well, but we essentially had Luther bringing up old arguments…and I use old loosely…lets try, O maybe 1,000 years??? He was protesting the Church hence the label of protestant. The Church long ago decided on a canon, as early as 382 under the Council of Rome headed by Pope Damasus I. You may say east and west, but lets not forget Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest…a disgruntled one by the way. So how can you say he wasn’t protesting?

Now you seem to ignore my observation that though we do not have an identical canon with the Orthodox, we both use the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament. The one Jesus and the Apostles quoted according to New Testament Scholars and is evident if you study the original Greek manuscripts. Protestants do not…not one of the 35,000+ denominations, whichever you fall under.

Well either way you are a grown up…look for this information yourself. Read up on the TRUTH. I’ll be praying for you and hope that you find it because I found it in Christ’s only Church founded on Peter.

Peace in Christ,

Rudy

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I will respond only to what the OP was asking, rather than the subsequent debate about Luther and what he believed or did.

The contents of the Septuagint were not fixed; thus the extant codices of the Septuagint had slightly different content - remember, this was the time before copyrights existed and any publisher could claim that the contents between 2 boards was the whole of the Septuagint. Thus, a particular form of the Septuagint that made its way into certain geographical regions can come to be accepted, through hallowed use, into the canons of the various Orthodox national churches.

It is also not the teaching of the Catholic Church (nor even the Orthodox Churches, afaik) that everything contained in the “Septuagint” (whatever that means since there is no standard content list) is canonical Scripture. The contents and limits of the canon are decided by the authority of the Church, not by publishers and compilers. And while in the Western Church, we have generally seen a generally closer relationship between canon and liturgical use, in the Eastern Churches, this is not the case. For example, the Russain Orthodox Church do not use the Apocalypse liturgically, but it is firmly in their canon of Scripture; even in the Latin Church, antiphons and bits drawn from 1 Esdras are found in the liturgy, but the book is not canonical for Catholics.

As mentioned by other posters, even to this day, the Orthodox Churches do not have a commonly held canon of Scripture. In 1622 (I think), they did define their canon to be larger than the Protestant canon, but they enumerated the additional books vaguely: they said something like the books of Maccabees (without indicating if they were 2, 3 or 4), and didn’t deal with the additions to the canonical books (e.g. Psalm 151 - is it a part of Psalms; Prayer of Manasseh - is it a part of Chronicles) etc. I recall that when the pan-Orthodox council was called a couple of years back, they had wanted to discuss the question of the canon; but when the council was held eventually last year- that item was dropped from the agenda. Suffice to say that the Orthodox Churches accept all the books considered canonical by the Catholic Church, but are not united in their understanding of the canoncity of the other additional books.

The Western and Eastern Churches got along just fine for many centuries with different forms of the canon. It would probably have never been a Church-dividing matter if not for the Protestant innovation of sola scriptura.