Protestant Canon

[SextusEmpiricus]

I think he is confused by the term “apocrypha”, which often refers to false writings. I don’t think he’s referring to the Deuterocanon, which the Catholic Church recognizes as inspired.

Oh, I see.

 

[ClearWater]

I am a bit confused. Are the seven books that Luther removed from the OT inspired or uninspired?

I thought they were inspired. Isn’t that why they are in the Catholic Bible?

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

I’ve read the books in question and have found sections that brought grace to my life. I’ve read other books of the bible, accepted by Catholics and protestants alike that were a hugely boring read.

You call yourself a skeptic but I don’t know how you define that. Is it a skeptic of Christianity in general or the Catholic Church?

Is this thread about me? Not to be rude, but perhaps you can send me a private message rather than derailing the thread. In short, I grew up Presbyterian, but we only attended church once or twice a year, if at all.

 

[ltwin]

Got it. Can you provide an example of scripture that is holy and not God-breathed, or are you saying the apocrypha fits this paradigm?

All Scripture is God-breathed and, therefore, holy. Protestants do not believe or are not sure of the status of the Deuterocanon. This is why early Protestant Bibles removed them from the Old Testament and placed them in an appendix positioned in between the Old and New Testaments. There, they were available to be read as devotional material for individual Christians without being deemed canonical and thus authoritative for Christian doctrine.

They were not considered Scripture, but they were kept in editions of the Bible because Protestants generally thought they were written by men who were godly, yet not inspired.

 

[JB_Dugan]

I am a bit confused. Are the seven books that Luther removed from the OT inspired or uninspired?

If those books were, and remain intact in the authentic Roman Catholic Bible…then yes! they are inspired.

A better question would be: why did Luther presume that he had the authority to meddle with the inspired Word of God?

 

[JB_Dugan]

SextusEmpircus is asking about the Deuterocanonical books, which Protestants commonly call the Apocrypha.

Well then he could have been a little more specific…don’t you think?

He said “Apocrypha”.

Christ knew the thoughts of the Pharisees…I’m not at that level yet.

Help me out here…are the protestant Deuterocanonical books the same as Catholic Deuterocanonical books?

 

[ltwin]

Help me out here…are the protestant Deuterocanonical books the same as Catholic Deuterocanonical books?

Yeah. The term “deuterocanonical” is a term used by Catholics to describe books that are part of their Old Testament but not part of the Hebrew Bible, which are called “protocanonical books.” These were mainly written during the intertestamental period. Protestants term these books the Apocrypha and in early Bible translations placed these in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments.

Most English speaking Protestant Bibles today don’t include an Apocrypha at all. There are Lutherans and Anglicans who read the Apocrypha, but the majority of English speaking Protestants today are totally ignorant of the deuterocanonical books.

While the Catholic Old Testament has 46 books, the Protestant Old Testament has 39 books excluding:

Tobit,
Judith,
1 & 2 Maccabees,
Wisdom,
Sirach,
Baruch

There are also additions to the books of Esther and Daniel that Protestants rejected.

 

[ltwin]

A better question would be: why did Luther presume that he had the authority to meddle with the inspired Word of God?

It’s not as simple as saying that Luther just imagined out of thin air a rationale for segregating the deuterocanon from the Old Testament. Many doubts had been expressed throughout history over the authority/authenticity of the deuterocanonical books. Even St. Jerome had doubts about them.

 

[adf417]

To the OP, as you can see the term Apocrypha in itself can be confusing even within Catholic circles. If you haven’t figured it out by now there are Apocryphal books that both Catholics and Protestants agree to be Apocryphal such as Acts of St. Andrew and Acts of St. Peter. The common argument here on CAF is weather or not the 7 books in the Catholic canon that are not in most Protestant canons (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, & Baruch) are inspired or not. Catholics call these 7 books the deuterocanonical, Protestants call these same books the Apocrypha. Sometimes people assume everyone understands this simple distinction when in fact many do not and confusion sets in. :whacky:

I hope this clears up the confusion for you so that you may better ask your question.

Peace!!!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Some Orthodox Catholics accept certain books and extra chapters as inspired that your Catholic Church does not. Therefore the Orthodox Catholics who came from the same tradition that your Church comes from are in disagreement. So they could easily say that your Church is wrong for not accepting books that they believed were always inspired. This is exactly what you’re saying to Protestants. If all Catholic Church’s were in agreement with the bishop of Rome over the OT Canon then you may have an argument, but they’re not.

Greetings, Just a small side note that although some Orthodox Churches include in their Cannon Books that are not included in the Cannon of the Catholic Church does not mean that they were rejected by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Cannon as set forth by the council of Trent is the minimum books to be included. Books such as Enoch, Jubilees, 3 and 4 Macabees were not include based on not that the Church rejected them, but that that contained nothing that added to the deposit of Faith. If God so grants that reunion of Orthodox and Catholic was to happen the Cannon is not a issue That would ever come into question as those used by the west (Catholic) and those used by the east (Orthodox) are the same as they were prior to The schism.

 

[Kliska]

It’s not as simple as saying that Luther just imagined out of thin air a rationale for segregating the deuterocanon from the Old Testament. Many doubts had been expressed throughout history over the authority/authenticity of the deuterocanonical books. Even St. Jerome had doubts about them.

Yep, and a RC contemporary of Luther’s, Cardinal Cajetan also looked into the canon and gave his opinion on which books should be included fully, or be labeled separately. He sided with Jerome.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

It has been a while since I logged in to CAF, and I asked this question a while back, but never quite received a satisfactory response. This question re-surfaced in my mind when the History channel recently broadcast a documentary about Martin Luther and the Reformation.

The question is this: How is it that the “apocrypha” were declared un-inspired? Put another way, how can something declared Holy and the Word of God in the 4th century – and accepted as such by Christians for many centuries – be declared un-Holy in the 16th century? I realize that some doctrines develop over time, such as the Bible’s table of contents – but has there ever been something declared Holy in one era, subsequently declared un-Holy in another era?

They were accepted by most Christians. There was a minority opinion as presented by Jerome and Cajetan that they weren’t inspired. They remained in good standing. That’s because before Trent it was “within bounds” so to speak to question them. Luther was before Trent therefore he was “within bounds” as well.

 

[kaneata]

Yep, and a RC contemporary of Luther’s, Cardinal Cajetan also looked into the canon and gave his opinion on which books should be included fully, or be labeled separately. He sided with Jerome.

But these are individual people with personal opinions. The Council of Trent along with other councils confirmed which books were to be part of the canon. Luther’s beliefs didn’t agree so he rejected them. The RCC believes John 16:13 “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…” The Spirit guided the Councils into choosing the books that are inspired.

Jerome sided with the Catholic Church realizing what she said took precedence over what he thought.

 

[Kliska]

But these are individual people with personal opinions. The Council of Trent along with other councils confirmed which books were to be part of the canon. Luther’s beliefs didn’t agree so he rejected them. The RCC believes John 16:13 “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…” The Spirit guided the Councils into choosing the books that are inspired.

Jerome sided with the Catholic Church realizing what she said took precedence over what he thought.

Obviously that is an interpretation and application that protestants don’t see in the same way as the RCC interprets and applies it. The point is that even within the RCC there were many who didn’t agree with what should be in the canon, even or especially, during the time of Luther.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

All Scripture is God-breathed and, therefore, holy. Protestants do not believe or are not sure of the status of the Deuterocanon. This is why early Protestant Bibles removed them from the Old Testament and placed them in an appendix positioned in between the Old and New Testaments. There, they were available to be read as devotional material for individual Christians without being deemed canonical and thus authoritative for Christian doctrine.

They were not considered Scripture, but they were kept in editions of the Bible because Protestants generally thought they were written by men who were godly, yet not inspired.

I think this gets closer to my question - and thank you for your responses - were the deuterocanonical books considered by Christians to be “god-breathed” before the Protestant Reformation?

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

They were accepted by most Christians. There was a minority opinion as presented by Jerome and Cajetan that they weren’t inspired. They remained in good standing. That’s because before Trent it was “within bounds” so to speak to question them. Luther was before Trent therefore he was “within bounds” as well.

Thanks for the response. Who is Cajetan? I have not heard of him.

 

[adf417]

Obviously that is an interpretation and application that protestants don’t see in the same way as the RCC interprets and applies it. The point is that even within the RCC there were many who didn’t agree with what should be in the canon, even or especially, during the time of Luther.

There were/are many Catholics (including priests) that believe the CC is wrong about homosexual marriages also but it doesn’t make them/it right.

Peace!!!

 

[Kliska]

I think this gets closer to my question - and thank you for your responses - were the deuterocanonical books considered by Christians to be “god-breathed” before the Protestant Reformation?

The easiest way to answer that is some did, some didn’t.

 

[Protestor]

I think this gets closer to my question - and thank you for your responses - were the deuterocanonical books considered by Christians to be “god-breathed” before the Protestant Reformation?

Do peoples beliefs dictate what is the truth. The amount of people that believe something is not a good basis for establishing the truth of a thing. Correct me if my context is off I just love Gandhi “If you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth”.

 

[adf417]

I think this gets closer to my question - and thank you for your responses - were the deuterocanonical books considered by Christians to be “god-breathed” before the Protestant Reformation?

If this is the question we are to ask, then we will have to define what was it meant to be to be Christian back then first which is why it is

I would be very careful with this question. Even Jehovah’s Witnesses, self proclaimed Christians, accept the 66 book canon. Rather you should be asking what did the Church consider to be “god-breathed”? and to that question, the answer would be “yes”.

Peace!!!