Extra Books in Catholic Bibles

[rcwitness]

Smart move. Less to study too and lighter on the arm as well.

While the Catholic Church was smarter… they got money from selling indulgences to pay for larger bibles.

 

[JonNC]

the poster who asked the question identifies as a Catholic.

And it is important for him to know that Michuta’s is a Catholic POV.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=jas84173;14204749]Th Protestant Reformers felt only the Hebrew Bible Old Testament was the “valid” one. Ironically, Luther wanted to also take Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as well, but didn’t have support for the most part.

I have often heard this, that Luther was talked out of removing these books, or that he didn’t have support for it, but I’ve never seen a source. Do you have one?

In fact, having read his commentaries, he seems to regularly state that he is expressing his own opinion, and no one was held to it. For example, his commentary on James starts:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle,

The Catholic and Orthodox Bibles Old Testaments come from the Greek Septuagint which was composed by Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria in the first century B.C. Just so happened that their Canon was larger than what was in the Hebrew Scriptures, however many books in here were revered by Jews of the time, especially Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach(Ben Sira). When Jerome translated the Greek and Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate, he did make note of this difference however every council ending with the Council of Trent reaffirmed these books. The only ones at Trent which were rejected yet placed in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate were The Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras( 3 and 4 Esdras in Vulgate appendix.) With that said, Orthodox actually tend to have even more books than Catholics. Here is a list of the additional books and additions to books not found in Jewish therefore Protestant Old Testaments, and are called Deuterocanonical books, to note that they are inspired however have been questioned. ProtoCanonical books are accepted as all as Scripture.
Roman Catholic Bibles also have:
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4–16:24)
Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)
Additions to Daniel:
Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

Orthodox Bibles have all of these and generally also have:
1 Esdras( 3 Esdras in Latin Vulgate Appendix)note:Ezra-Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras in Latin Vulgate.
3 Maccabees
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151

Also:
**2 Esdras( 4 Esdras in Latin Vulgate Appendix) is included in Slavonic Orthodox Bibles.
4 Maccabees appears in an appendix in Greek Orthodox Bibles. **

So that is the history of it, although much more complex this kind of sums it up. Entire books have been written on it, if you are curious as to a more complex reasoning of why this is, I suggest researching it, it is very interesting actually. The largest Canon is that of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church with 81 books including 1 Enoch and Jubilees.

While I think you underplay Jerome’s view of the DC’s, most of this seems similar to what I have heard and read.

Jon

 

[Lenten_ashes]

And it is important for him to know that Michuta’s is a Catholic POV.

Jon

If he is a Catholic posting on Catholic answers, not very likely he was looking for anything but a Catholic POV

 

[JonNC]

If he is a Catholic posting on Catholic answers, not very likely he was looking for anything but a Catholic POV

This is the Non-Catholic forum. One on think that if he was looking for exclusively Catholic views, the Sacred Scripture forum might have been the choice. It is also instructive that the OP does not list a religion in his/her profile.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

It is also instructive (did you mean interesting?) that the OP does not list a religion in his/her profile.
Jon

Yes. I wonder if all these questions are going to result in choosing a “house” to worship and Commune.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Is there a book that you would recommend that would explain in depth how and why the Protestants removed books from the Bible? Perhaps on Luther or apologetics? Thank you!!

That’s ^^^ who I personally responded to, who identifies as Catholic, not the OP.

This is a old thread and the last time the OP posted on it was “Aug 19, '15, 6:24 am”…so at this point we are talking to the person(Catholic) who bumped the thread last week. Therefore, he/she was rightly given him a Catholic POV.

This is the Non-Catholic forum. One on think that if he was looking for exclusively Catholic views, the Sacred Scripture forum might have been the choice. It is also instructive that the OP does not list a religion in his/her profile.

Jon

 

[adf417]

Its bigger because, in the Catholic tradition, the canon of scripture includes the seven books. known collectively as the Deuterocanonical books. Typically, Bibles used by protestant communions do not include these seven books, while canons of scripture in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy include even more books.
The tradition of not including the Deuterocanonical books is primarily English language. Luther’s translation, for example, which is still prominent in German Lutheran settings, contains 74 books; the DC books mentioned above, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

Jon can you explained the bolded statment above. And while you are at it, please fill in the proverbial blank as to why if Luther’s bible had 74 books, do protestant bibles have less today? (the next logical question to follow the OP). I expect your explanation to be unlike Michuta’s “pov” as you go on to say.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

Jon can you explained the bolded statment above. And while you are at it, please fill in the proverbial blank as to why if Luther’s bible had 74 books, do protestant bibles have less today? (the next logical question to follow the OP). I expect your explanation to be unlike Michuta’s “pov” as you go on to say.

Peace!!!

Sure. It was English language Bibles, well after the 1611, that excluded them. Not German Bibles or others.
I’ve heard a number of reasons why from trying to save money to Westcott and Hort, and others.

Whatever the case, most communions that are loosely considered protestant believe that the DC books, much less the other apocryphal books, are not inspired by God. That opinion, though in the minority, has always been around, but the exclusion of them from the Bible is relatively recent, and in my view, a mistake. My parish uses the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which includes numerous readings from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Macc, and Baruch, for example, in its lectionary.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Sure. It was English language Bibles, well after the 1611, that excluded them. Not German Bibles or others.
I’ve heard a number of reasons why from trying to save money to Westcott and Hort, and others.

Whatever the case, most communions that are loosely considered protestant believe that the DC books, much less the other apocryphal books, are not inspired by God. That opinion, though in the minority, has always been around, but the exclusion of them from the Bible is relatively recent, and in my view, a mistake. My parish uses the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which includes numerous readings from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Macc, and Baruch, for example, in its lectionary.

Jon

So, how many books are in the Bible?
I say the same as the age of the great Saint Jerome.

 

[adf417]

Sure. It was English language Bibles, well after the 1611, that excluded them. Not German Bibles or others.
I’ve heard a number of reasons why from trying to save money to Westcott and Hort, and others.

Whatever the case, most communions that are loosely considered protestant believe that the DC books, much less the other apocryphal books, are not inspired by God. That opinion, though in the minority, has always been around, but the exclusion of them from the Bible is relatively recent, and in my view, a mistake. My parish uses the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which includes numerous readings from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Macc, and Baruch, for example, in its lectionary.

Jon

How is this different than Michuta’s pov and what is the takeaway for the OP in your opinion?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

So, how many books are in the Bible?
I say the same as the age of the great Saint Jerome.

I say it depends on the communion. The EO includes books that the west does not.
That said, the history of the Church has always had disputes about certain books, from Eusebius forward. As for Jerome’s position, his was a good one, because even he recognized that some books are disputed.
In close, Luther translation includes 74 books. The KJV used in my Anglican parish contains 73, and we read from those books, including the DC books

 

[JonNC]

How is this different than Michuta’s pov and what is the takeaway for the OP in your opinion?

Peace!!!

Michuta’s position, as I understand it, is that Luther changed his view of the DCs in response to his debate with Eck at Leipzig. Luther’s view of 2 Macc was already in place, and was not a change of convenience.

 

[rcwitness]

I say it depends on the communion. The EO includes books that the west does not.
That said, the history of the Church has always had disputes about certain books, from Eusebius forward. As for Jerome’s position, his was a good one, because even he recognized that some books are disputed.
In close, Luther translation includes 74 books. The KJV used in my Anglican parish contains 73, and we read from those books, including the DC books

But that’s just stating the obvious. Here is another obvious statement; God’s Word is not dependant on
various opinions. The deuteros are either Scripture, or they’re not. And that goes for all the writings. And how can we believe that God did not provide a means to have certainty in one canon? Btw, in Jerome’s time, the Canon was not fixed through the authority of the Church. I guess that shows I don’t buy into the Damascene Decree.

 

[adf417]

Michuta’s position, as I understand it, is that Luther changed his view of the DCs in response to his debate with Eck at Leipzig. Luther’s view of 2 Macc was already in place, and was not a change of convenience.

Ok so is it your understanding that all POVs are just that POVs (not that I think Michuta is any authority) and there is no single absolute authority that can now speak for the unified unlearned across Christianity as to which books belong and which books do not belong and that this position somehow eludes Jn 16:13?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

But that’s just stating the obvious. Here is another obvious statement; God’s Word is not dependant on
various opinions. The deuteros are either Scripture, or they’re not. And that goes for all the writings. And how can we believe that God did not provide a means to have certainty in one canon? Btw, in Jerome’s time, the Canon was not fixed through the authority of the Church. I guess that shows I don’t buy into the Damascene Decree.

I agree with you that there is but one canon, so how do we get His one Holy Church to come to an agreement, guided by the Spirit?
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Ok so is it your understanding that all POVs are just that POVs (not that I think Michuta is any authority) and there is no single absolute authority that can now speak for the unified unlearned across Christianity as to which books belong and which books do not belong and that this position somehow eludes Jn 16:13?

Peace!!!

That wasn’t my point, but currently I think you are correct, and it is obvious: there is not one absolute authority within the Church Militant. It is rather obvious because the various patriarchates of the Historic Church disagree. That’s not an issue of the guidance of the Spirit, but of our fallen nature.
Furthermore, John 16:13, “13But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.”, is not phrased in the past tense, or even the present tense. His teaching is an ongoing process, not a static one.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

I agree with you that there is but one canon, so how do we get His one Holy Church to come to an agreement, guided by the Spirit?
Jon

How do we get anyone to agree with God? How are we compelled to agree with God? The older I get, the more I think the only thing we can do is follow Him with humility, not offending His Church He founded on Peter. If He uses us, as individuals, to compel others to what we follow, then that is a gift from doing His Will.

I need to work on that. It’s such a challenge to walk with Him. And our leaders must focus on the purpose of their vocations too. To love and serve the flock. As a husband, a father, and a CCD teacher, I want to focus on what I actually have control over… myself. A man who has control of himself (in the Lord) will be an instrument for God to lead others.

I’m not exactly accomplishing this so well. God willing, I can grow stronger.

 

[adf417]

That wasn’t my point, but currently I think you are correct, and it is obvious: there is not one absolute authority within the Church Militant. It is rather obvious because the various patriarchates of the Historic Church disagree. That’s not an issue of the guidance of the Spirit, but of our fallen nature.
Furthermore, John 16:13, “13But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.”, is not phrased in the past tense, or even the present tense. His teaching is an ongoing process, not a static one.

Jon

And if another new communion decides today to go out on their own and exclude the book of Revelation, your opinion would be that they are wrong and should return to the fold from which they came or, at the very least, keep the canon from which they left with, correct?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

And if another new communion decides today to go out on their own and exclude the book of Revelation, your opinion would be that they are wrong and should return to the fold from which they came or, at the very least, keep the canon from which they left with, correct?

Peace!!!

Well, you picked a tough book because Revelation has been in dispute since the early Church, but beyond that, yes, of course. Or at least be within the range that historically the Church has held regarding the canon.
While Luther, for example, is often denounced for his translation and is views of the DCs and NT antilegomena, he was faithful to the western tradition of including all 73 books, and actually went one better.

Jon