but I believe that’s the basic history of it. 
I think this is a good explanation but I would also add that if these Old Testament books that He quoted from were good enough for Jesus they are certainly good enough for me.It’s a complex issue, but the Deutrocanonical books weren’t added on. They are simply books that were considered inspired until a Jewish council–held after Christianity appeared–decided that those certain books were not part of the OT canon–because of when they were written more than because of what they contained. However, since the Apostles and Jesus himself quoted from those books, the Church retained them, going with a different criteria and with a different translation–the Greek translation over the limited Hebrew version. The reformers rejected the fuller Greek version and accepted the shorter Hebrew version because the Greek supported Church teachings that they had rejected. I may have some of the particulars wrong, so those who know more be kind
I found this YouTube video (9 mins) to have the simplest but thorough explanation.
i concur with the link provided for the youtube video explaining the difference of the catholic bible and the protestant bible. it is a good concise presentation of the reasons behind the difference of the catholic vs. protestant bibles.
Yes, it was due to the Reformation.
This video starts off ok, but then goes off the rails a bit at 2:19. “These two Bibles differed…” One can’t really speak of “two Bibles” until after the invention of the codex (around the fourth century) and the development of the idea of a canon itself, which is also much later.
He speaks of two “bibles” in a generic sense.
The Council of Jamnia isn’t even debated, except perhaps by people that have no idea what they are talking about. There’s simply zero evidence for it—a fanciful theory that’s easily discredited by simply reading what are proposed as the underlying texts from the Talmud. As for the Jewish criteria for selecting books, there’s no historical evidence one way or the other. Sure, “proposing narratives” might be fun, but it’s poor scholarship, especially when one holds out these theories as established facts to people who really don’t know any better—it’s extremely misleading. I’m continually amazed at how sloppily this “history” of how the Bible developed is presented by some Catholic apologists.He speaks of two “bibles” in a generic sense.
The council of Jamnia is indeed debated, but the fact is at some point the Jewidh people decided on Their canon, and in doing so the disregarded texts without Hebrew originals.
It is also fact that the early church used the Septuagint and it is referenced countless times by the church fathers.
Nice try though!
Perhaps you have another narrative you’d like to propose?
So where did the canon come from in your worldview?
I don’t reject the right of the Catholic Church or the many Orthodox Churches to develop their own individualized Biblical canons—so I don’t “reject” them per se—it’s just a description of what happened. History shows that each church developed its own individual biblical canon as well as their individualized theology of canon for that matter. I think the best we could say is that they developed independently and organically.
It’s an excellent historical summary. There are some nuances and exceptions but this is the history of the western church and the eastern church is largely along these lines with a couple minor differences that don’t affect the story.
“The Council of Jamnia, presumably held in Yavneh, was a hypothetical late 1st-century council at which the canon of the Hebrew Bible was alleged to have been finalized. First proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871, this theory was popular for much of the twentieth century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward and the theory has been largely discredited.”
How early and how diverse it was, we really have no idea. Certainly before the 10th century.
SOME Christians used the Septuagint (only Greek speakers) which differed in content from what eventually became the Latinate/Catholic Bible.
No evidence that I know of.
Right. It’s just that the other churches didn’t buy into the authority of the Synod.
Fine with me.
Eastern Church? There are many different Eastern Churches, all with different biblical canons. Another problem in the video, incidentally.
I honestly didn’t watch the video until the end, but from what you’re saying I assume it included the usual misleading Catholic apologetics about reformers removing books. See post #8, particularly the bit about the British and Foreign Bible Society House removing the Deuterocanonical books in the 19th Century, not the reformers in the 16th.
Why should I care what books Joseph Smith had in his Bible. Diversity of canon has been around since the beginning of Christianity.
Not this Protestant.
Does not bother me in the slightest.
True. But it’s also a shame that many Catholics have rewritten history as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Not really. After a brief period in the 1500s, Lutherans, and Protestants generally, have embraced, with a grip of iron, the same 27 book New Testament canon from the Catholic Church. Since the beginnings of Mormonism, Protestants have indeed “cared” very much about Smith “adding” books to the New Testament. Protestants then, and now, regard Mormonism as a cult for that reason. Mormons however regard their doctrines as scriptural. They are right, in that their scriptures include their doctrines. When Protestants try to convert Mormons, they try to convince them to go back to the (Catholic) “original” canon.