Origin of Bible - when books were officiated

[jp1of6catholic]

I am talking with a couple of protestant friends and my memory is a bit sketchy as to the councils which officiated the books of the bible. My friends keep insisting that certain books (wisdom, Tobit, etc.) were added later by the church, which is why Luther didn’t include them in his version.

Could someone please help me give a more substantial historical explanation for the origin of the bible?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am talking with a couple of protestant friends and my memory is a bit sketchy as to the councils which officiated the books of the bible. My friends keep insisting that certain books (wisdom, Tobit, etc.) were added later by the church, which is why Luther didn’t include them in his version.

Could someone please help me give a more substantial historical explanation for the origin of the bible?

Here’s a link that will explain the canon of the Bible.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

The Church did not add books to the Bible. Protestant reformers rejected the Greek Septuagint and chose the Hebrew Masoretic text, when it came to the Old Testament. For the New Testament, they had no choice but to accept the Greek Septuagint.

The Church used the Greek Septuagint, for both Testaments.

Hope it helps.

 

[Nita]

Here’s a link that will explain the canon of the Bible.

The Church did not add books to the Bible. Protestant reformers rejected the Greek Septuagint and chose the Hebrew Masoretic text, when it came to the Old Testament. For the New Testament, they had no choice but to accept the Greek Septuagint.

The Church used the Greek Septuagint, for both Testaments.

Hope it helps.

The Septuagint refers to the Old Testament only. It was a Greek translation of the Old Testament made before Jesus was born.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Septuagint refers to the Old Testament only. It was a Greek translation of the Old Testament made before Jesus was born.

Yes, thanks for the correction. Still, I believe the New Testament was translated from Greek and possibly some from Aramaic.

 

[turtleoompa]

Martin Luther did not like some of the books of the Bible. I believe he moved the seven books to the back of his bible and eventually over time and through the printing press they became omitted. The 7 books the Protestants don’t have were actually taken out by them. This is sad because jesus does refer to them a lot.

 

[Zenas]

Here’s a link that will explain the canon of the Bible.

The Church did not add books to the Bible. Protestant reformers rejected the Greek Septuagint and chose the Hebrew Masoretic text, when it came to the Old Testament. For the New Testament, they had no choice but to accept the Greek Septuagint.

The Church used the Greek Septuagint, for both Testaments.

Hope it helps.

Good explanation, PS1, but I have to take issue with your suggestion that the New Testament was ever a part of the Septuagint. Like the Septuagint, all of the N.T. was written in Greek, with the possible exception of Matthew which may have been written in Hebrew. However the N.T. pretty much existed as independent books until Jerome translated and assembled the Latin Vulgate around 400 A.D.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Good explanation, PS1, but I have to take issue with your suggestion that the New Testament was ever a part of the Septuagint. Like the Septuagint, all of the N.T. was written in Greek, with the possible exception of Matthew which may have been written in Hebrew. However the N.T. pretty much existed as independent books until Jerome translated and assembled the Latin Vulgate around 400 A.D.

Thanks…Nita provided a correction already and I acknowledged it.

I find irony in the reformers disregarding the Septuagint when the New Testament was written in Greek.

 

[notsmart]

The catholic church added books to the bible? That was never Luther’s position, his I believe was that they could NOT have been canonical, upon reading them. He did not claim they were never part of the bible he had in his very hands to discect to his liking.