Origins of the catholic and protestant bible and why they are different

[curtmaisa]

I was wondering the origins of the catholic and protestant bible. Why did they end up different. I heard this explanation on a podcast but lost it. I thought it was said that orginally the Jews wanted to differiniate themselves from the Christians so they reverted back to sometime before without some of the books and that is why Luther only used some of the books also. Is this correct of my memory?

 

[Fred_4]

Technically, the origins are exactly the same. About 1100 years after the origin, the protestants, led by Luther, decided to make changes. It has to do with the council of Jamnia, or something like that. “This Rock” has a good article on it… circa 2003 or something. Maybe you can search on that.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Where We Got the Bible

That should help.

 

[Marnica01]

Technically, the origins are exactly the same. About 1100 years after the origin, the protestants, led by Luther, decided to make changes. It has to do with the council of Jamnia, or something like that. “This Rock” has a good article on it… circa 2003 or something. Maybe you can search on that.

It is more complicated than that. There had long been a debate in the Church about what to do concerning 14 books that were included in the Old Testament but were of late orgin and written in Greek. Following the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.) and around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (135 A.D) by the Romans, a reformed Jewish Sanhedrin decided to remove these 14 Greek books from their Scriptures. Christians were undecided what to do. Some thought we should removed all fourteen. Some thought we should remove some and keep others. And still others thought we should keep them all.

In the 16th century, the matter came to ahead when some of the Protestant Reformers sided with those who wanted to remove all fourteen. The Roman Church decided to remove seven and keep seven, but designated those seven as “deutero-canonical”. The Eastern Orthodox Church kept all fourteen.

Interestingly, the Church of England reached a compromise of sorts wherein they removed all fourteen from the canonical Scriptures but also kept all fourten in a sort of appendix called the “Apocrypha”. My mother, who was raised a Baptist (but is now a Catholic), remembers reading the Apocrypha that came with her King James Version Bible when she was a girl.

 

[dacoobob]

It is more complicated than that. There had long been a debate in the Church about what to do concerning 14 books that were included in the Old Testament but were of late orgin and written in Greek. Following the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.) and around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (135 A.D) by the Romans, a reformed Jewish Sanhedrin decided to remove these 14 Greek books from their Scriptures. Christians were undecided what to do. Some thought we should removed all fourteen. Some thought we should remove some and keep others. And still others thought we should keep them all.

In the 16th century, the matter came to ahead when some of the Protestant Reformers sided with those who wanted to remove all fourteen. The Roman Church decided to remove seven and keep seven, but designated those seven as “deutero-canonical”. The Eastern Orthodox Church kept all fourteen.

You talk as though the whole matter was undecided until Trent. Didn’t the councils in the fourth century include the seven deuterocanonical books but exclude the other seven from the canon? As far as I know, the council of Trent merely confirmed the old canon against the Protestants’ attempted revision.

 

[lak611]

I purposely purchased the ecumenical RSV with Apocrypha, edited by May and Metzger, because I wanted a Bible that had the books accepted by the Orthodox but considered apocryphal by the Catholic Church. I already had the RSV-CE, published by Scepter.

 

[dacoobob]

You talk as though the whole matter was undecided until Trent. The councils in the fourth century included the seven “deuterocanonical” books but excluded the other seven from the canon. The council of Trent merely confirmed the same canon against the Protestants’ attempted revisions.

 

[Marnica01]

You talk as though the whole matter was undecided until Trent. Didn’t the councils in the fourth century include the seven deuterocanonical books but exclude the other seven from the canon? As far as I know, the council of Trent merely confirmed the old canon against the Protestants’ attempted revision.

Then the Eastern Orthodox should have the same canon as we do, but they don’t…so it couldn’t have been that early.

 

[Fred_4]

Here’s that This Rock article I mentioned before… if I can do this right…

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Nope. Guess I can’t. Anyway it’s in the September 2004 issue if you go to the “This Rock” section of the CA webpage.

 

[lizaanne]

I strongly recommend this DVD and book set: www.biblepack.com - it is an outstanding documentary about the history of the creation of the Bible, in the format of something you would see on the History Channel.

Also - you can listen to a related podcast HERE - see episode six of season three, toward the bottom of the page.

~Liza

 

[Old_Scholar]

There is a great deal to be read concerning the history of the Bible as we have it today. I will give you the most common Protestant prospective.

There are two canons of the Bible. The Old Testament was canonized by the Jews around 200 BC. The last living prophet was Nehemiah and he lived around 420 BC. After he was gone, there were no more prophets. That is when the Jews canonized the Old Testament. Later on the Septuagint was written and it included other books that were to become known as Apocryphal books.

This is because many of the authors were not known to have written the books, none of them claimed to be inspired and in many cases they were historically inaccurate.

When they were included in the Septuagint, they were separated and later became known as the deuterocanonical books.

The first time the New Testament was considered canonized by the Catholics was in about 330 A.D. and the deuterocanonical books were listed in addition to the canonized ones. There have been disputes throughout the years over taking this one out and including another, etc. but none of the books were ever considered Scriptural or canonized until after the Reformation. In fact many of th early church leaders disagreed over these books and there was a great deal of discussion, inclusion and exclusion of them. The Orthodox kept them as deuterocanonical when they split from the Catholics.

Most Protestants believe the New Testament books were canonized prior to any official announcement by the apostles and churches themselves as the books used for the first 4 centuries by the churches are still the same 27 New Testament books we have today and the same as was canonized by the church in the 4th century. Many believe that the usage of the books themselves created the canonization.

When Luther translated the Bible into German, he included the Apocryphal books but listed them separately and said they were for reading and historical value only. They were not considered Scriptural then.

After the big dispute, the RCC, at Trent, declared the books canonized and included them in the RCC Bible. Some think they did that to counter Luther’s movement.

Today, few theologians consider the books as canon but instead still refer to them as Apocryphal. Some even call them the “Lost books of the Bible.”

They have nothing to do with the New Testament and pertained only to Old Testament times. When the King James Book was written, the Apocryphal books were listed in a separate section with the same comments Luther made about them. For reading value and some historical value only. Today’s KJV doesn’t list them at all. Only the RCC Bible.

 

[Stillkickin]

There is a book out recently that I have been meaning to purchase, but haven’t done so yet, but I have heard that it expalins it very well. It is titled “Why are Catholic Bibles bigger” the author is (if I remember correctly) Gary G. Michuta.

Hope this helps, stillkickin

 

[inthecloud]

There are two canons of the Bible. The Old Testament was canonized by the Jews around 200 BC. The last living prophet was Nehemiah and he lived around 420 BC. After he was gone, there were no more prophets. That is when the Jews canonized the Old Testament. Later on the Septuagint was written and it included other books that were to become known as Apocryphal books.

Sorry that is not correct in many ways

1. There were several Bible canon and textual familes in Jesus times, the Saduces, the Samaritans, the Septuagint and the Pharisees protomasoretic text.
2. The Pharisees canonized their cannon in the shul of Yabnè (Jamma) in 90 AD.
3. Daniel and Esther were written in the 200-100 BC like Macabees and Ben Sirach.
   4.The Septuagint is closer to the Old Testament books founded in the Dead Sea Scroll that the Masoretic text. NT quotes from the OT match the Septuagint not the protomasoretic text of the Pharisees.
4. The early jewish christians used the Septugint as the EOChurch does today. Kudos for them.

This is because many of the authors were not known to have written the books, none of them claimed to be inspired and in many cases they were historically inaccurate.

The Pharisees deliberately tried to close the canon at the Babilonian exile, the Pharisees were a sect that startet in the Babylonian cautivity. They excluded books written in the Damascus and Egytian Diaspora favored by other Jewish sects, despite being written in hebrew like Macabees (a Zealots favorite) and Ben Sirach. Book written in aramaic like Tobit and of course, the early forms of Mark and allegely Q or the collected sayings of Jesus. They excluded all book written in Greek, like of course the Gospels and the Apostles letters. That was the main purpose of closing the canon to books written in 200 BC in hebrew. But them the Pharisees broke their rules and included Daniel and Esther as inspirend to the consternation of the some of the sect at Quramm.
The Pharisees created the Tanak in 90 AC becuse after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans they became the principal sect in judaism. So they pick and choosed what they wanted to form the Bible. The “intertestamentary period” is a protestant invention, the OT canon was growing even in Jesus times, that is how we got the NT.

When they were included in the Septuagint, they were separated and later became known as the deuterocanonical books.

The Septugint was made by Jews in Alexandria in prechristian times. Some ECF confused the Pharisees TANAK with the non existant Jewish canon in Jesus times. The Early Christians used the Septugint as their Bible, not the protomasoretic text.

Most Protestants believe the New Testament books were canonized prior to any official announcement by the apostles and churches themselves as the books used for the first 4 centuries by the churches are still the same 27 New Testament books we have today and the same as was canonized by the church in the 4th century.

That is not correct, there were huge polemics in the Early Churches about fake Gospels and fake Apostles letters, not every Church had the same letters, some doubted of books like hebrews and Revelations.

When Luther translated the Bible into German, he included the Apocryphal books but listed them separately and said they were for reading and historical value only. They were not considered Scriptural then.

Luther wanted to get books that did not support some of his beliefs. Macabees (praying of the dead, intersession of saints) James and Revelation were very close to be out of protestant Bibles, Philp Melachton and other people stopped it.

After the big dispute, the RCC, at Trent, declared the books canonized and included them in the RCC Bible. Some think they did that to counter Luther’s movement.

True, but what about the Orthodox?

Today, few theologians consider the books as canon but instead still refer to them as Apocryphal. Some even call them the “Lost books of the Bible.”

There is a nice protestant fellow at Harvard who is a leading scholar on the Dead Sea Scrolls that would beg to differ. More o him lately. He wants those books back in protestant Bibles, and the rest of the OT text modified to match the Septugint, I wish him luck but why do not just buy Catholic or even better Orthodox ecumenical Bibles?

They have nothing to do with the New Testament and pertained only to Old Testament times.

Well some mensajes like Macabees are universal, so Tobit and Ben Sirach. And Wisdom contains a very specific messianic passage. So I beg to differ.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You are in error with your claims. Check what your own church has to say about the Apocrypha until after Trent.

First of all, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and was canonized by the Jews over 200 years before Christ. The Septuagint was written (in Greek) approximately in 125 AD. The Jewish people never used it because it was not in Hebrew and not inspired.

The Septuagint included the Apocryphal books, but they were all written in Greek and none of them claimed to be inspired and in most of them the author is still unknown.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews again canonized the Old Testament because some of the people were beginning to question the Apocrypha books. They used the same 39 books we have today but they numbered them differently, in some cases putting 5 of them together into one book. Today the book they still use is the same as our Old Testament, with nothing added or taken away.

The oldest copy of the Old Testament was held by Melito, Bishop of Sardis in 170 AD and it contains only the proto canonical books. Melito had to go to Jerusalem to find out which books were actually used in the churches.

We cannot even be sure the Septuagint actually included the Apocrypha books. The oldest copy of it that has been preserved dates only back to 400 A.D. We have no earlier copies to check it by. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they found an exact copy of Isaiah that dated back to 125 BC. That is the oldest copy we have. The John Ryland papyri copy dates back to 125 A.D. The Codex Sinacticus A dates back to 350 AD and the Codex Vaticanus B dates back to 350 AD.

There are 25,000 handwritten copies of those manuscripts and they have proven to be 110% accurate as the original.

When Jerome translated the Septuagint into the Vulgate, he refused to include the Apocrypha books as he did not believe them to be inspired or authenticated.

Hippo, Rome and Carthage were local councils. Augustine, North African Bishop of Hippo accepted the Apocrypha but his version was different than the RCC version. Augustine was the one who “forced” Jerome to finally include the Apocrypha books in his Vulgate, although with a statement of their use for private reading only.

There was no official declaration of the authority of the Apocrypha books until after Martin Luther’s time and then the Council of Trent claimed them to be canonical.

Origen, Athanasius and Jerome all denied their authenticity but Jerome was finally forced to include it in his translation, as I said before.

You must be familiar with the *Glossa Ordinaria *as it is the foremost authority on the books of the Bible in the Catholic Church. It has withstood the test of time throughout all the generations. **It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. ** When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon’ and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome.

You will find the information on the Glossa Ordinaria here:

greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CAiy

This Glossa Ordinaria will give you book by book and those early church leaders who wrote especially about them.

The Apocrypha books could never be authenticated, the authors are mostly unknown and the historical value of them is erroneous. See if you can find Jesus quoting from any of them or the other writers of the New Testament.

I believe the only reason the Council of Trent decided to canonize them was to get back at Luther because he was raising quite a stir and dividing the church into two separate factions. It was a big enough blow when the Orthodox split off.

Regarding your comment that all the books of the New Testament were not present in all the churches; to that I say then that you do not believe the Apostles and Disciples would not have circulated the books written by them and eyewitnesses only throughout the area as Christ had instructed them to do. To believe that the churches did not circulate the epistles would be incongruous for them.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews again canonized the Old Testament because some of the people were beginning to question the Apocrypha books. They used the same 39 books we have today but they numbered them differently, in some cases putting 5 of them together into one book. Today the book they still use is the same as our Old Testament, with nothing added or taken away.

You mean the Jews who denied that Jesus is the Messiah? Why are they the authority on the Christian Bible canon? They didn’t include any of the NT - should we throw that out, too?

See if you can find Jesus quoting from any of them or the other writers of the New Testament.

There are actually lots of NT passages that allude to the deuterocanonical books.

 

[TheOneTrueFred]

You must be familiar with the *Glossa Ordinaria *as it is the foremost authority on the books of the Bible in the Catholic Church.

No, it’s not. The glossa was no more an authority than the footnotes in any bible.

It has withstood the test of time throughout all the generations. **It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. **

Yes, it just repeats Jerome - so why mention it again? Because Aquinas liked it? Doesn’t matter, neither Aquinas nor Jerome were in a position to make a final call.

 

[TheOneTrueFred]

You mean the Jews who denied that Jesus is the Messiah? Why are they the authority on the Christian Bible canon? They didn’t include any of the NT - should we throw that out, too?

Right on, but to dig a little deeper: notice that everyone that’s questioned the deuteros relies directly or indirectly on the Jewish decision for that support? Jerome did his work in Jerusalem with the cooperation of the Jewish community there - he translated from their Hebrew, and followed the canon they decided years after Christ. The Church never agreed with his judgment. Years go by, Jerome’s notes go attached to his translation, people then as now treat the notes as if they were part of the text, and confusion reigns. Later writers make their own arguments for or against the deuteros, with practically all the “against” camp relying on Jerome.

As for Melito - His canon doesn’t include Esther, but does include Wisdom. Another guy with another opinion and not in any position to make a final call.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Right on, but to dig a little deeper: notice that everyone that’s questioned the deuteros relies directly or indirectly on the Jewish decision for that support? Jerome did his work in Jerusalem with the cooperation of the Jewish community there - he translated from their Hebrew, and followed the canon they decided years after Christ. The Church never agreed with his judgment. Years go by, Jerome’s notes go attached to his translation, people then as now treat the notes as if they were part of the text, and confusion reigns. Later writers make their own arguments for or against the deuteros, with practically all the “against” camp relying on Jerome.

As for Melito - His canon doesn’t include Esther, but does include Wisdom. Another guy with another opinion and not in any position to make a final call.

I recently learned that some of the NT books are deuterocanonical - the very ones that Luther wanted to exclude from his translation! Why it’s OK to have the deuterocanonical books of James, Jude, Revelation and 2 Peter but not OK to have Sirach, Wisdom, etc. is simply beyond me.

 

[guanophore]

You are in error with your claims. Check what your own church has to say about the Apocrypha until after Trent.

First of all, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and was canonized by the Jews over 200 years before Christ. The Septuagint was written (in Greek) approximately in 125 AD. The Jewish people never used it because it was not in Hebrew and not inspired.

This is a rather narrow world view. It does not account at all for the diaspora. What do you think all those Jews used who were present in Jerusalem at Pentecost? They spoke every language and tongue from all over the known world. They read their scriptures in Greek.

The Septuagint included the Apocryphal books, but they were all written in Greek and none of them claimed to be inspired and in most of them the author is still unknown.

How do you account for the fact that Jesus and the Apostles used them? How do you account for the fact that the vast majority of what we accept today as “inspired” does not “claim” to be inspired?

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews again canonized the Old Testament because some of the people were beginning to question the Apocrypha books. They used the same 39 books we have today but they numbered them differently, in some cases putting 5 of them together into one book. Today the book they still use is the same as our Old Testament, with nothing added or taken away.

What you are saying is that you prefer a canon composed by those who rejected Christ, instead of on composed by those who accepted Him.

We cannot even be sure the Septuagint actually included the Apocrypha books. The oldest copy of it that has been preserved dates only back to 400 A.D. We have no earlier copies to check it by. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they found an exact copy of Isaiah that dated back to 125 BC. That is the oldest copy we have. The John Ryland papyri copy dates back to 125 A.D. The Codex Sinacticus A dates back to 350 AD and the Codex Vaticanus B dates back to 350 AD.

Fortunatly we can rely on the pillar and ground of the Truth to know!

There was no official declaration of the authority of the Apocrypha books until after Martin Luther’s time and then the Council of Trent claimed them to be canonical.

This is typical of church declarations. They are not made until heresy pops up, and creates controversy, requiring definitive statements. The same was true of the nature of Christ, and the Trinity.

This Glossa Ordinaria will give you book by book and those early church leaders who wrote especially about them.

I wonder how you characterize the way the Eastern Orthodox have kept he canon.

See if you can find Jesus quoting from any of them or the other writers of the New Testament.

I have a collection of quotes from the apocrophal books by Jesus and the Apostles. I have not read this whole thread though. Perhaps someone else has already done so?

I believe the only reason the Council of Trent decided to canonize them was to get back at Luther because he was raising quite a stir and dividing the church into two separate factions.  It was a big enough blow when the Orthodox split off.

Interesting that the Orthodox have the same canon. It is the Church’s duty to storm the gates of hell. She is required to stand up for the truth whenever necessary. Defending the truth does not come from a place of resentment or “retaliation”, but of devotion to hold fast to the teachings, whether they were delivered by word of mouth, or be letter.

Regarding your comment that all the books of the New Testament were not present in all the churches; to that I say then that you do not believe the Apostles and Disciples would not have circulated the books written by them and eyewitnesses only throughout the area as Christ had instructed them to do. To believe that the churches did not circulate the epistles would be incongruous for them.

They circulated what they had, but not all the copies of all the books got all the way around for centuries. We still are not sure what letter is referred to by Paul to the Laodiceans that Paul instructed the Ephesians to trade.

 

[inthecloud]

You are in error with your claims. Check what your own church has to say about the Apocrypha until after Trent.

I’m not a christian, I’m a searcher that leans catholic. I want to know if the Bible can be trusted. What the ECFs and the RCC said about the deutericanon is irrelevant. The current acheological data of what happened during I century Palestine is far better.

First of all, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and was canonized by the Jews over 200 years before Christ.

I repeat. The Pharisees closed the Canon on purpose in 90 AD in the Yabnè Shul (Jamma) to books written on purpose in Hebrew. Daniel and Esther were written after 200BC.

The Septuagint was written (in Greek) approximately in 125 AD. The Jewish people never used it because it was not in Hebrew and not inspired.

False unless the Pharisees are the all Jews for you. The Diaspora Jews used the Septuagint. And the Saducees and the Samaritans only though is inspired the Torah.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews again canonized the Old Testament because some of the people were beginning to question the Apocrypha books.

Again they were not all the Jews, were the Pharisees. Among the Apocrypha they wanted to purge were the first NT book available. Why trust the Pharisees jugement on the issue of some OT books and not in the whole NT.

We cannot even be sure the Septuagint actually included the Apocrypha books. The oldest copy of it that has been preserved dates only back to 400 A.D. We have no earlier copies to check it by. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they found an exact copy of Isaiah that dated back to 125 BC

. The Dead Sea Scrolls included the Apochypha and behold, that the Hebrew text matches more the Septuagint that the MT text. That rested the case for many people. Ah, 1 Maccabees and Ben Sirach were written in Hebrew in the original. Fragments were found.