T
t68ware
Guest
Protestant here and wanting to know why the Catholic Bible has 7 books the Protestant Bible does not. Were they part of the original canon or were they added at a later date and who canonized them?
- Status
D
DarkMark
Guest
Renowed Protestant Scholar J.N.D Kelly in his book “Early Christian Doctrines”
It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the twenty-two or twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism … It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocryphal or deutero-canonical books. (p. 53)
In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement [3, 4; 27, 5] and Barnabas [6, 7], and from 2 (4) Esdras and Ecclesiasticus in the latter. [12, 1; 19, 9] Polycarp [10, 2] cites Tobit, and the Didache [4, 5] [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to [Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 26, 3; Book IV, cap. 38, 3; Book V, cap. 5, 2; Book V, cap. 35, 1] Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary. (p. 54)
Early Christians has always accepted these books as Scriptures. The Christian community or Churches by the late 300 AD canonized Scripture in the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Carthage in 396 AD which included the 7 Books more Books.
It was Martin Luther who removed them and place them between the OT and NT has “uninspired”. He rejected other books has well, including several NT books.
There is no reason biblically or historically why one should reject these 7 books (as well as the additions of Daniel and Ester).
It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the twenty-two or twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism … It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocryphal or deutero-canonical books. (p. 53)
In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement [3, 4; 27, 5] and Barnabas [6, 7], and from 2 (4) Esdras and Ecclesiasticus in the latter. [12, 1; 19, 9] Polycarp [10, 2] cites Tobit, and the Didache [4, 5] [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to [Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 26, 3; Book IV, cap. 38, 3; Book V, cap. 5, 2; Book V, cap. 35, 1] Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary. (p. 54)
Early Christians has always accepted these books as Scriptures. The Christian community or Churches by the late 300 AD canonized Scripture in the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Carthage in 396 AD which included the 7 Books more Books.
It was Martin Luther who removed them and place them between the OT and NT has “uninspired”. He rejected other books has well, including several NT books.
There is no reason biblically or historically why one should reject these 7 books (as well as the additions of Daniel and Ester).
V
Verbum
Guest
Hi T,
Those “extra” books are called deuterocanonicals (due-tear-o-kan-ON- ik-uhls) Catholic Answers has some good pages on this subject :
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
Verbum
Those “extra” books are called deuterocanonicals (due-tear-o-kan-ON- ik-uhls) Catholic Answers has some good pages on this subject :
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
Verbum
1
1holycatholic
Guest
All Bibles are Catholic.
R
rpp
Guest
The real history about these “missing” and “editted” books is actually fairly straightforward.
Early Christians used the collection of Jewish Scriptures called the Septuagint. This was the Greek version of the Jewish canon. However, the Jews stopped writing in Hebrew around the 2nd or 3rd century BC. Books written after that time were written in Greek, not Hebrew.
Some time around the 1st century BC, The Old Testament Hebrew books were translated into Greek in Alexandria, allegedly by 70 Jewish scholars. This translation was combined with the books originally written in Greek to form the Septuagint. This became the official Jewish canon and remained that for about 2 centuries.
Sometime in the mid-second century BC, Jewish scholars decided to reject this Greek translation and return to an earlier Hebrew canon that used alternate (shorter) forms of the books of Daniel and Ester.
Interestingly, when the canon of the New Testament was set in three successive Church Councils around the turn of the 5th century, the canon of the Old Testament was not set. It was the force of Tradition (capital “T”) that lead the Church to use the Septuagint.
Jump ahead 1100 years to the 15th century. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and other reformers promoted the Sola Scriptura doctrne. They claimed that since the Jews later rejected the Septuagint, that the Church should do the same. So they used the Jewish canon of the 2nd century A.D.
Later, in the mid-15th century at the Council of Trent, the Church explicitly set what had been implicit for more than a millennium; the canon of the
Old Testament was based on the Septuagint.
While it is convenient to say that Protestant reformers took books out of the Old Testament, it is not entirely accurate. It is more accurate to say that Protestant reformers rejected the Catholic Church’s source and replaced it with a post-Christian Jewish source.
This book can help you understand how the Catholic Church established the canon of scripture. Where We Got the Bible.
By the way, if I have made any factual errors, I invite charitable correction. Also, please note that I am not trying to do any editoriualizing here. My intent is simple recitation of facts as I understand them. If my understanding is flawed, please charitably tell me my mistake(s) and provide citations from reliable sources. Thank you! :tiphat:
Early Christians used the collection of Jewish Scriptures called the Septuagint. This was the Greek version of the Jewish canon. However, the Jews stopped writing in Hebrew around the 2nd or 3rd century BC. Books written after that time were written in Greek, not Hebrew.
Some time around the 1st century BC, The Old Testament Hebrew books were translated into Greek in Alexandria, allegedly by 70 Jewish scholars. This translation was combined with the books originally written in Greek to form the Septuagint. This became the official Jewish canon and remained that for about 2 centuries.
Sometime in the mid-second century BC, Jewish scholars decided to reject this Greek translation and return to an earlier Hebrew canon that used alternate (shorter) forms of the books of Daniel and Ester.
Interestingly, when the canon of the New Testament was set in three successive Church Councils around the turn of the 5th century, the canon of the Old Testament was not set. It was the force of Tradition (capital “T”) that lead the Church to use the Septuagint.
Jump ahead 1100 years to the 15th century. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and other reformers promoted the Sola Scriptura doctrne. They claimed that since the Jews later rejected the Septuagint, that the Church should do the same. So they used the Jewish canon of the 2nd century A.D.
Later, in the mid-15th century at the Council of Trent, the Church explicitly set what had been implicit for more than a millennium; the canon of the
Old Testament was based on the Septuagint.
While it is convenient to say that Protestant reformers took books out of the Old Testament, it is not entirely accurate. It is more accurate to say that Protestant reformers rejected the Catholic Church’s source and replaced it with a post-Christian Jewish source.
This book can help you understand how the Catholic Church established the canon of scripture. Where We Got the Bible.
By the way, if I have made any factual errors, I invite charitable correction. Also, please note that I am not trying to do any editoriualizing here. My intent is simple recitation of facts as I understand them. If my understanding is flawed, please charitably tell me my mistake(s) and provide citations from reliable sources. Thank you! :tiphat:
K
kms123
Guest
The last paragraphs of this page you sited:
Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: “We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God,” wrote Augustine, “but by the canon of the Catholic Church.”
Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.
Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”
R
rpp
Guest
YES I DID!!!
Thank you for the correction.
That paragraph should read:
Sometime in the mid-second century A.D., Jewish scholars decided to reject this Greek translation and return to an earlier Hebrew canon that used alternate (shorter) forms of the books of Daniel and Ester.
M
Micael
Guest
In a nutshell, St.Jerome- a brilliant but controversial Bishop of his day, the original first translator of the Bible from the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) into the Latin Vulgate in the late 4th century, made a technical error.
It was an understandable error, based on a large presuption by typical European Christians. The Rabbinical Jews represented all Judaism. When Rabbincal Jews (even today) were simply just ONE of various Hebrew sects. Actually they are the direct spiritual decendents of the Pharisees.
This error, was presumed by most Europeans as Rabbinical Jews were the lone Hebrew sect to migrate to Europe.
While translating the Scriptures in the Holy Land where he lived his last 30 years of his life, Jerome dialogued exclusively with Rabbinical Jews as he translated the Old Testament. Evidently, he notice several “catholic O.T.” books were not included in the Jewish (unaware that he was studing only Rabbinic/Pharisaic canon) and thus he made the proclaimation that these books were Apocryphal (or hidden books) and unauthoritative. Though Jerome would later, in practice, contradict himself using those very books as authoritative writings.
Ultimately, the issue is that Martin Luther eventually stumbled upon those earlier erroneous writings of Jerome and made the same conclusion…that somehow the Church must have added these books (also presuming the Pharisaic/Rabbinical Canon represented ALL Jews of all times).
Reality was that the Jews as a whole never had closed their canon nor did they have the authority to do so. For it was Christ, that essentially provided that authority only to his church to "bind and loosen(Mt 16/18/1 Tim 3:15).
That said, with Christ you have an end to “true” Judaism and its various sects. But what were these Hebrew sects? We have at least the following. The Saducees (which believed the Torah…only the first 5 books as the lone bible), the Pharisees (which closed their canon at about 100 AD naturally conflicting with Hebrew Christian canon utilized by most Jews of apostolic times), the Essenes which may have been the sect of John the Baptist (they are the same sect which we receive the Dead Sea Scrolls from), and the Beta Israel the Ethiopian Jews also refered as Falasha.
That said, I think we can get the idea where we received the Catholic Canon…from the Jews themselves- but not simply Pharisaic-Rabbinical Jews. There was a large number of various books being utilize at the multiple churches and Patriarchates of early Christendom (both for New and Old Testament…but for this discussion I’ll consentate only on OT). Since, the bible was not uniform the Church had a problem. Thus, in the late 300’s it would first attempt to unify the Canon for the ENTIRE bible(where we all Christians received the NEW as well as Old Testament- though 1100 years later, trucated by Luther’s acceptance of the Pharisaic Canon) and naturally also provide a translation in the vernacular tongue of the time (at least in Western Europe), Latin- Jerome’s assignment. This would occur durring the Council of Rome of 380 authorized by Pope Damasus I, and verified by various future Councils (Hippo 393, Carthage 397, Carthage 419 as well as Eccumenical Councils Florece 1442 and Trent 1546 of course.)
The bottom line, the Church would unify the OT scripture based on the entire Hebrew Canon utilized by Greek-Helenist Jews, Egyptian-Alexandrian Jews, Essene , Pharisaic, Sadusaic, and Ethiopian Beta Israeli Jewish canons. Throwing out scriptual from un-scriptural to provide all Christians the enitire bible canon (including** all 27 NT books **all Christians use). Thus you have the 46 books in the OT of Catholic Bibles which the fathers of Rabbincal Jews- the Pharisees threw out as “Christian” books Hebrew Christians utilized- as a way of setting themselves apart from what they concidered false Jews.
What you do not hear is that the Catholic Bible includes 3 or 4 books utilized by the Essene Jews of the Dead Sea scrolls, and all of the books utilized by Hellenist Jew as well as Beta Israel Ethiopian Jews that still exist today! These later two sects’ canon actually include several other books not included in Catholic Bibles (considered true OT Apocrypha for Catholics).
In Christ Jesus,
Micael
C
Crumpy
Guest
Those interested in this subject seriously should wade through the many threads on this subject that already exist.
One such thread had to do with the comparison (or alleged comparison) of the ‘apocrypha’ to the gospels and perhaps to the rest of the NT, to show the correspondence (the evidence) that the apostolic church “used” the septuagint version, and particularly Jesus Himself.
In those posts, there is an extensive list of “proof texts” to show that Jesus was familiar with the “apocrypha.”
One such thread had to do with the comparison (or alleged comparison) of the ‘apocrypha’ to the gospels and perhaps to the rest of the NT, to show the correspondence (the evidence) that the apostolic church “used” the septuagint version, and particularly Jesus Himself.
In those posts, there is an extensive list of “proof texts” to show that Jesus was familiar with the “apocrypha.”
R
rpp
Guest
While this post has some correct statements, much of the background regarding St. Jerome and Martin Luther is not supported by the extensive study I have made on this topic.
The idea that “Rabbinical Jews” were the only Jewish sect to migrate to Europe is not supported by any historical record I have ever seen.
Micael, can you quote a **reliable **source (not anti-Catholic) for the numerous assertions you have made in your post? If so, I would like to examine these.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I can recommend no better source on the matter at this time than Gary Michuta’s book, “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger”. This isn’t the only source you can find this info., but probably has the most collected in one book.
The answer to your question is that the books were considered Divine, and Protestants ultimately removed them starting with the 18th century Bible Societies.
If you don’t want to read the whole book (although I recommend you do!) you can listen to free interviews with the author here:
Gary Michuta on Catholic Answers Live MP3
Gary Michuta on Kresta in the Afternoon radio MP3
The answer to your question is that the books were considered Divine, and Protestants ultimately removed them starting with the 18th century Bible Societies.
If you don’t want to read the whole book (although I recommend you do!) you can listen to free interviews with the author here:
Gary Michuta on Catholic Answers Live MP3
Gary Michuta on Kresta in the Afternoon radio MP3
S
Static
Guest
In short, the Council of Jamnia in about 100 A.D. had decided that there was 39 books in the canon of the O.T. They almost decided to drop out Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes which would make the canon 37 books, but decided to keep them in. Their council on the decision of how many books were in the N.T. was “0” for the simple reason that someone already said, they did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Anyone who holds to the KJV must know that the first 1611 KJV had 73 books in it and it wasn’t until 15 or so years later that the seven books were disreguarded as scripture. There is a library in Chicago, (excuse my spelling if it is wrong ) Reaganstine Library, that is suppose to have an original 1611 KJV on hand.
People talk about how simple the scriptures have been made for us to understand. My question would be is how simple are they if they were put together in two different languages ?
The same councils, as someone has already posted, that put together the O.T also put together the N.T. No one rejects the canon of the N.T… Why ? Same people. You accept the 27 books of the N.T., without question when we don’t even know who wrote Hebrews or that Mathew even wrote Matthew. As someone else stated, Martin Luther was going to delete 7 books from the N.T., ranging between Hebrews to Revelation as well as the 7 from the O.T.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t know why the Hebrew translation of Esther is accepted over the Septuagint when God isn’t even mentioned once throughout the whole book.
May God Bless. Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )
People talk about how simple the scriptures have been made for us to understand. My question would be is how simple are they if they were put together in two different languages ?
The same councils, as someone has already posted, that put together the O.T also put together the N.T. No one rejects the canon of the N.T… Why ? Same people. You accept the 27 books of the N.T., without question when we don’t even know who wrote Hebrews or that Mathew even wrote Matthew. As someone else stated, Martin Luther was going to delete 7 books from the N.T., ranging between Hebrews to Revelation as well as the 7 from the O.T.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t know why the Hebrew translation of Esther is accepted over the Septuagint when God isn’t even mentioned once throughout the whole book.
May God Bless. Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )
M
Micael
Guest
edited- as above.
M
Micael
Guest
I do have sources. However, can you point out some of the specific “errors” about St. Jerome and Martin Luther so I can be more precise.
(I may have assumed Luther was strictly abiding by Jerome’s commentary. Personally, I do believe this may have been his initial reasoning. However, as someone mentioned, he did eventually intend to remove several other books by truly his own interpretive authority. What prevented that from happening was that other Protestant scholars of Luther’s time did not allow him to do so without historical back-up, but did agreee with the removal of the 7 books because as far as they were concerned they were not included in the “Jewish Bible”)
Regarding “Rabbinical Jews” there is also matterial…but before I look up the cobwebs, can you identify a single significantly large non-Rabbinical Jewish sect existng or ever existing in Europe. My point is that for all intents and purposes the lone Jewish sect existing in Europe as a whole were strictly Rabbinical Jews. But for starters, Heinrich Grätz and his “History of the Jews” is a great source. Actually it is from this source that we received the theory of the Council of Jamnia.
As far as your last commentary, I am a bit intrigued, by your statement, “Micael, can you quote a reliable source (not anti-Catholic)
for the numerous assertions you have made in your post?”What are you talking about? Did you read my entire post? “Anti-Catholic”- absolutely absurd! There must be a **serious **misunderstanding.
R
rpp
Guest
When a person makes claims, as you have done, it is not up to others to refute them. We are free to doubt anything anyone says when they do not provide citations, links or any kind of supporting material.I do have sources. However, can you point out some of the specific “errors” about St. Jerome and Martin Luther so I can be more precise.
(I may have assumed Luther was strictly abiding by Jerome’s commentary. Personally, I do believe this may have been his initial reasoning. However, as someone mentioned, he did eventually intend to remove several other books by truly his own interpretive authority. What prevented that from happening was that other Protestant scholars of Luther’s time did not allow him to do so without historical back-up, but did agreee with the removal of the 7 books because as far as they were concerned they were not included in the “Jewish Bible”)
Regarding “Rabbinical Jews” there is also matterial…but before I look up the cobwebs, can you identify a single significantly large non-Rabbinical Jewish sect existng or ever existing in Europe. My point is that for all intents and purposes the lone Jewish sect existing in Europe as a whole were strictly Rabbinical Jews. But for starters, Heinrich Grätz and his “History of the Jews” is a great source. Actually it is from this source that we received the theory of the Council of Jamnia.
As far as your last commentary, I am a bit intrigued, by your statement, “Micael, can you quote a reliable source (not anti-Catholic)
What are you talking about? Did you read my entire post? “Anti-Catholic”- absolutely absurd! There must be a **serious **misunderstanding.
If you want to make assertions like “St. Jerome was controversial” or “Rabbinical Jews” (whatever that means) was the only Jewish sect to make it to Europe, (ignoring Hellenistic Jews for example), or that European Jews influenced Martin Luther in the same way, with different outcomes, that St. Jerome, 1100 years earlier, was, you need to provide some serious historical citation.
In addition, rather than scholarly, the words and language you chose was slightly pejorative and carried a strong undercurrent of editorializing. That is always a warning sign that someone is not conveying the full measure of historical information. (You do this when you use phrases like “brilliant but controversial”.
Your point that the whole Word of God as both we and Protestants have it, hinges on “mistakes” requires more that just your word. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Additionally, factual errors, such as stating that St. Jerome was a bishop, do not add credibility to what you post.
C
Cranch
Guest
Per your invitation, I would like to fine-tune some of the above for the sake of accuracy. The Torah was first translated into Greek in the mid-3rd century B.C. The rest of the Hebrew bible was translated over time right down through the 1st century B.C., though most seems to have been translated into Greek by 130 B.C. Greek versus Hebrew composition was not the only criteria which kept some books out of the Jewish bible; otherwise most books of the Deuterocanon would have been included:
1 Maccabees - written in Hebrew around 100 B.C.
Sirach - written in Hebrew 2nd century B.C.
Tobit - written in Aramaic or Hebrew 2nd century B.C.
Judith - written in Hebrew 2nd or 1st century B.C.
Baruch - internal and textual evidence for at least partial composition in Hebrew
R
rpp
Guest
Thank you. I do appreciate the correction about the dates. As well as more about the origins of some of the books in the deuterocanon.
I
inthecloud
Guest
Another critera was the geographical origin. the Pharisees did not like books coming from Alexandria or Damanscus. No Ben Sirach or Wisdom or Maccabees. Too many christians writting coming form those towns.
Another was politics. No Maccabees, too imflamatory after 70 AD.
Another was not commonly found in Hebrew. All christian writting and most deuterocanonicals.
- Status