protestants. why are you the odd one out?

[benidict]

after doing some research into the ancient churches. i noticed something. the Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic Churches all list the deautro-cannonical books as scripture. Protestants, in light of historical evidence. why are these books not included in your scripture? the evidence is pretty overwealming that the early Church considered these books to be inspired. by what authority did the protestant fathers decide to take them out? Peace

 

[Edwardjohn]

after doing some research into the ancient churches. i noticed something. the Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic Churches all list the deautro-cannonical books as scripture. Protestants, in light of historical evidence. why are these books not included in your scripture? the evidence is pretty overwealming that the early Church considered these books to be inspired. by what authority did the protestant fathers decide to take them out? Peace

My opinion is that it didn’t agree with their doctrine. Don’t like it, take it out. Luther almost took out the book of James.

 

[SyCarl]

It should be noted that the Catholic canon and the Orthodox canon do not agree. The Orthodox canon includes more. Then there is the Coptic canon, or at least that of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, has yet more books included. Why do these churches vary in the canon?

 

[Skeptic92]

My opinion is that it didn’t agree with their doctrine. Don’t like it, take it out. Luther almost took out the book of James.

And St. Johns Apocalypse (The Book of Revelation)

 

[Reuben_J]

My opinion is that it didn’t agree with their doctrine. Don’t like it, take it out. Luther almost took out the book of James.

That is what it seems to me. And if they did not take it out because it might be too obvious, then next thing to do is to engage in interpretation gymnastic so that the verses would fit into the doctrine. Even if the scripture says rock or eat or drink, in gymnastic there are way to understand them differently. Other times it means even to disown your own father … .

 

[benidict]

It should be noted that the Catholic canon and the Orthodox canon do not agree. The Orthodox canon includes more. Then there is the Coptic canon, or at least that of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, has yet more books included. Why do these churches vary in the canon?

very good question. i noticed this as well. Peace

 

[crazzeto]

It should be noted that the Catholic canon and the Orthodox canon do not agree. The Orthodox canon includes more. Then there is the Coptic canon, or at least that of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, has yet more books included. Why do these churches vary in the canon?

The Orthodox have never canonized scripture, so this statement is somewhat false… The CC most certainly has, though Eastern Rite churches do make use of not officially canonized Septuigant books.

This argument isn’t really a very good one against the Duetero books at all, and it certainly offers no justification for Martin Luther on his own authority tossing them out.

 

[Spencerian]

It should be noted that the Catholic canon and the Orthodox canon do not agree. The Orthodox canon includes more. Then there is the Coptic canon, or at least that of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, has yet more books included. Why do these churches vary in the canon?

Here’s a version of my explanation from a prior thread, based on some research.*

The texts known as “Apocrypha” to the Protestants are, indeed, authentic and reliable texts in the Bible translations of the Catholic Church.

To explain why will get a little complicated, but makes sense. It’s a bit of wordplay and history, combined with Protestant…well, protests.

What the Protestants call the “Apocrypha” are certain books of the Old Testament that they (meaning, Martin Luther) decided, on his own authority, were not truly the inspired Word of God.

Luther, to his credit, did not remove these books from his version of the Bible but moved them to the end and labeled them as “Apocrypha.”

These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (or Ecclesiastes), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees, and certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

Later, publishers would begin to omit the books altogether to save on printing costs.

Catholics, specifically the early Church fathers, recognized the value of other books used not only by the *Palestinian *Jews (the protocanonical books of the “Old Testament”) but also books used by another group of Jews, the *Alexandrians *(the deutrocanonical books). The Alexandrian Jews sometimes had additional books than their Palestinian brethren.

That’s why Orthodox and Catholic tomes differ from an Old Testament standpoint: the books differed because of preferences and traditions in Judaism and local culture. Jews didn’t have a unified canon as Christianity does today. Some respected one set of books, and others did not.

The Catholic Church saw most of **both **sets of Alexandrian and Palestinian writings as inspired texts.

I’d read this Catholic Encyclopedia article to see how the canon evolved over the first centuries of the Church to today, and their sources and their authority.

With the Protestant “Reformation”, the Council of Trent reemphasized the Biblical canon for all Catholics in 1546.

The New Testament books are generally identical in Orthodox and Catholic translations.

 

[JRKH]

It should be noted that the Catholic canon and the Orthodox canon do not agree. The Orthodox canon includes more. Then there is the Coptic canon, or at least that of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, has yet more books included. Why do these churches vary in the canon?

This is my take on the matter.
At the end of the 4th, and beginning of the 5th Century a series of councils approved the 73 book canon. This same canon was approved for the eastern Churched at 2nd Nicea in787 AD. Each of these things occurred before the great schism between East and west. Also it should be noted that the canon was never officially closed by any of these councils. So while the Universal Church approved the 73 book canon, the Eastern Churches continued to include other books found in the Septuigent.
Obviously this variation was not seen as a problem by the Church in the west or by the Holy See in Rome.
The Canon did not really become a problem until the Protestants,splitting from the Western Church, began removing books from the cannon without authority and then publishing Bibles that were deficient in both the number of books and also in quality of translation.
When this began the Western Church was forced to take a stand, and thus, at the council of Trent, Officially closed the canon at the already previously and universally approved 73 books. This had to be done in order that the faithful should know positively which bibles were catholic and correct and which bibles were spurious.

Protestants hold up that the Deutero’s were not included in the “Hebrew” OT. This is a weak argument. For it basically accuses the united and universal Church (and by extension the Holy Spirit) at the end of the 4th Century of getting the canon “wrong” and not correcting this error for 1000 years. Hardly a convincing argument to me when Christ promised to guide His Church into All Truth, and that The decisions of the Church, that is, what she to bound or loosed, would be upheld in heaven.

The Orthodox have never canonized scripture, so this statement is somewhat false… The CC most certainly has, though Eastern Rite churches do make use of not officially canonized Septuigant books.

This argument isn’t really a very good one against the Duetero books at all, and it certainly offers no justification for Martin Luther on his own authority tossing them out.

Agreed.
Had not St Paul Himself said that “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2Tim 3:16) And Since St Pul preached and taught in the Greek speaking world who used the Septuigent, could he possibly have meant only the hebrew books?

The 73 book canon was determined by several approved and spirit guided Church councils and reafirmed, without change, by several more, ALL before the Protestant reformation. Martin Luther determined, on his own and without authority from the Church, to change the canon. So which sounds more “spirit guided”?

Peace
James

 

[blazerdave]

We still use the Deuterocanonicals. We even get 2 Esdras too!

 

[revert_jen]

Protestants hold up that the Deutero’s were not included in the “Hebrew” OT. This is a weak argument. For it basically accuses the united and universal Church (and by extension the Holy Spirit) at the end of the 4th Century of getting the canon “wrong” and not correcting this error for 1000 years. Hardly a convincing argument to me when Christ promised to guide His Church into All Truth, and that The decisions of the Church, that is, what she to bound or loosed, would be upheld in heaven.

My understanding is that they are correct about the Hebrew scriptures, only in a completely useless way.

There was no official canon of Hebrew scripture (except the Torah) until a council in about AD100. That is when it was decided that the books that were written only in Greek (for which no original source in Hebrew existed at that time) would not be included. My understanding is that to some extent, this was a reaction on the part of the Jewish people to the Christians using those books and the Septuagint in general, pretty much universally.

So it is true that the deutero-canonical books were not part of the Hebrew scriptures in 1523, but they were part of the widely-used scriptures of the Jewish people at the time of Christ and were part of the scriptures used by the Apostles and other early Christians. I beieve most of the quotations of the OT in the NT come from the Septuagint, which had all of the books that Catholics use.

–Jen

 

[BrianH]

My understanding is that they are correct about the Hebrew scriptures, only in a completely useless way.

There was no official canon of Hebrew scripture (except the Torah) until a council in about AD100. That is when it was decided that the books that were written only in Greek (for which no original source in Hebrew existed at that time) would not be included. My understanding is that to some extent, this was a reaction on the part of the Jewish people to the Christians using those books and the Septuagint in general, pretty much universally.

So it is true that the deutero-canonical books were not part of the Hebrew scriptures in 1523, but they were part of the widely-used scriptures of the Jewish people at the time of Christ and were part of the scriptures used by the Apostles and other early Christians. I beieve most of the quotations of the OT in the NT come from the Septuagint, which had all of the books that Catholics use.

–Jen

Two things if I may
The Council of Jamnia is widely believed to have discussed the canon and that is not true. catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
Second, the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are simply not known. The LXX was in flux and the earliest existing copies have different books reflecting the fluid nature of the LXX.
Carry on

 

[JRKH]

My understanding is that they are correct about the Hebrew scriptures, only in a completely useless way.

There was no official canon of Hebrew scripture (except the Torah) until a council in about AD100. That is when it was decided that the books that were written only in Greek (for which no original source in Hebrew existed at that time) would not be included. My understanding is that to some extent, this was a reaction on the part of the Jewish people to the Christians using those books and the Septuagint in general, pretty much universally.

So it is true that the deutero-canonical books were not part of the Hebrew scriptures in 1523, but they were part of the widely-used scriptures of the Jewish people at the time of Christ and were part of the scriptures used by the Apostles and other early Christians. I beieve most of the quotations of the OT in the NT come from the Septuagint, which had all of the books that Catholics use.

–Jen

Yes I have heard this too. I have also heard some interesting arguments advanced by protestants as to why we should only accept these books, such as the OT books belong to the Jews so they should know which are inspired, (even though they didn’t know who (as in Jesus) was THE inspired Word of God.)

The simple fact remains that, regardless of what the Jewish leaders decided, the Unified Christian Church (remember there had been no schism as of yet), guided by The Holy Spirit, determined a 73 book Canon. AND reaffirmed this decision multiple times. The Protestants have no such authoritative, councilior basis for the removal of books deemed inspired for 1000 years.

Peace
James

 

[Anna_Scott]

after doing some research into the ancient churches. i noticed something. the Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic Churches all list the deautro-cannonical books as scripture. Protestants, in light of historical evidence. why are these books not included in your scripture? the evidence is pretty overwealming that the early Church considered these books to be inspired. by what authority did the protestant fathers decide to take them out? Peace

Hey Benidict,

Interesting question. Now attending an Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion; I recently bought a Bible with Deuterocanonical Books. Actually, I had planned to read them anyway (before coming to the Episcopal Church.)

Re Anglican Canon:

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and
instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are
these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,

868 Historical Documents​

The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and
account them Canonical. (The Book of Common Prayer)

The rather ironic issue about the KJV, is that many Protestants claiming the KJV is the only inspired version, are unaware that the KJV contained the Deuterocanonical Books for nearly 300 years. If my memory serves me correctly, The King James Bible was originally printed with 80 Books in 1611. The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books were not “officially” removed until 1885.

Anna

 

[Radical]

after doing some research into the ancient churches. i noticed something. the Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic Churches all list the deautro-cannonical books as scripture. Protestants, in light of historical evidence. why are these books not included in your scripture? the evidence is pretty overwealming that the early Church considered these books to be inspired.

The evidence is overwhelming that a variety of opinions existed regarding the way in which these books should be viewed and used.

by what authority did the protestant fathers decide to take them out? Peace

Their review of the evidence caused them to conclude that these books should not be used to establish doctrine. Their authority is the same as possessed by early church fathers who concluded otherwise…all are equal members of Christ’s church. It might be noted that certain groups of ECFs claim a thing called apostolic succession, but since the typical Protestant rejects that claim, the typical Protestant is free to look upon the earlier decisions wrt the canonicity of books as being open to review. In other words, a 16th or 21st century Protestant can consider whether “James” should be included in the NT canon for the same reasons that some ECFs asked the same question. Likewise, a 16th or 21st century Protestant can consider whether “the apocrypha” should be included in the OT canon for the same reasons that Jerome pondered the matter. As councils are quite capable of error, a council’s decision isn’t determinative.

JRKH:

Protestants hold up that the Deutero’s were not included in the “Hebrew” OT. This is a weak argument. For it basically accuses the united and universal Church (and by extension the Holy Spirit) at the end of the 4th Century of getting the canon “wrong” and not correcting this error for 1000 years. Hardly a convincing argument to me when Christ promised to guide His Church into All Truth, and that The decisions of the Church, that is, what she to bound or loosed, would be upheld in heaven.

…and I think that you should understand that this is hardly a convincing analysis to me when it requires self-authentication. How do we know that Christ’s promise (to his then present disciples) to send the Spirit who would guide them into all truth meant that the later ECFs could not err (even to a small percentage) wrt defining the canon? How do we know that Christ’s promise (to his then present disciples) that what they bound or loosed, would be upheld in heaven meant that the later ECFs could not err (even to a small percentage) wrt defining the canon? How do we know these promises can be extended to the later Church? Is it simply b/c those who want to rely on these decisions of those ECFs say that is what these promises meant? Kind of self-serving (I think). …and after that, how do we identify the body of believers that is the “Church” of the promises (assuming that the promises can be extended to the later Church)? Do we have anything that is an objective measure?..or is it simply “We are the true Church, b/c we say so?”

 

[blazerdave]

The evidence is overwhelming that a variety of opinions existed regarding the way in which these books should be viewed and used.

Their review of the evidence caused them to conclude that these books should not be used to establish doctrine. Their authority is the same as possessed by early church fathers who concluded otherwise…all are equal members of Christ’s church. It might be noted that certain groups of ECFs claim a thing called apostolic succession, but since the typical Protestant rejects that claim, the typical Protestant is free to look upon the earlier decisions wrt the canonicity of books as being open to review. In other words, a 16th or 21st century Protestant can consider whether “James” should be included in the NT canon for the same reasons that some ECFs asked the same question. Likewise, a 16th or 21st century Protestant can consider whether “the apocrypha” should be included in the OT canon for the same reasons that Jerome pondered the matter. As councils are quite capable of error, a council’s decision isn’t determinative.

…and I think that you should understand that this is hardly a convincing analysis to me when it requires self-authentication. How do we know that Christ’s promise (to his then present disciples) to send the Spirit who would guide them into all truth meant that the later ECFs could not err (even to a small percentage) wrt defining the canon? How do we know that Christ’s promise (to his then present disciples) that what they bound or loosed, would be upheld in heaven meant that the later ECFs could not err (even to a small percentage) wrt defining the canon? How do we know these promises can be extended to the later Church? Is it simply b/c those who want to rely on these decisions of those ECFs say that is what these promises meant? Kind of self-serving (I think). …and after that, how do we identify the body of believers that is the “Church” of the promises (assuming that the promises can be extended to the later Church)? Do we have anything that is an objective measure?..or is it simply “We are the true Church, b/c we say so?”

With all due respect, friend, I would kindly reply that perhaps it might be wiser to trust the ECFs who were closer to the source than we are, and who were far more devout in their faith than we (at least, more than I am). I’m not saying that you are this way , but I sometimes encounter a very postmodern mindset among Christians who seem to think that questioning and doubting everything is the sole way to determine what’s “really” true. So when it comes to the canon, they’re ready to get rid of the deuterocanonicals…then some want to move on to James, 2 Peter, maybe 2 & 3 John, maybe Revelation, Jude, maybe Hebrews, Jonah, etc. My humble opinion is that I am willing to trust that God did not lead His Church into error when they assembled the canon of Scripture, and I firmly believe that it is better to retain the good than to discard it because someone doesn’t like it. The removal of books from the Protestant canon was a mistake, and it opened a Pandora’s box of questioning, doubting, and readiness to throw out anything traditional about our Faith.

 

[revert_jen]

Two things if I may
The Council of Jamnia is widely believed to have discussed the canon and that is not true. catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
Second, the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ are simply not known. The LXX was in flux and the earliest existing copies have different books reflecting the fluid nature of the LXX.
Carry on

According to your source, your first statement is incorrect. The canon was discussed by the Rabbis at Jabneh/Jamnia but they did not have the authority to come to any binding decision and they did not exclude the deutero-canonical books or produce a list.

Do you have a source for the second statement? I would be interested to learn more specifics about the differences. I have certainly heard that the NT quotes from some of the deutero-canonical books in the septuagint.

Anyway, oddly enough, it doesn’t affect the validity of my argument. The fact that the Jewish canon was in fact formed much later than is generally believed, means that it has even less to do with what Christians should regard as scripture. I imagine Jewish people would agree that the two canons need not be related, except as two different branches on the same tree.

–Jen

 

[Nicea325]

It should be noted that the Catholic canon and the Orthodox canon do not agree. The Orthodox canon includes more. Then there is the Coptic canon, or at least that of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, has yet more books included. Why do these churches vary in the canon?

Well at least the OT canon. The OT canon has always been the real issue. Frankly, I do not make a big deal over it. If Protestants want to have less,then so be it,their choice.If Coptics and Orthodox want a longer OT,so be it.

 

[revert_jen]

The evidence is overwhelming that a variety of opinions existed regarding the way in which these books should be viewed and used.

That’s a really vague statement. Existed when? Existed after the canon was established or before? And who had these opinions? I mean, there were a variety of opinions about whether Jesus was God (or alternatively whether Jesus was Man) as well, but that doesn’t leave the answer in doubt.

Their review of the evidence caused them to conclude that these books should not be used to establish doctrine. Their authority is the same as possessed by early church fathers who concluded otherwise…all are equal members of Christ’s church.

Having spent several years attending Protestant churches, I think you will find that many Protestants disagree with your idea that every member of Christ’s Church has the authority to determine the contents of the Bible. I mean, it’s obvious–if everyone felt that they were the sole arbiter of the canon for themselves, there would be a lot more variety in Protestant Bibles than there is. If there can be at least five different views on the subject of baptism, I cannot believe that everyone independently agrees on the canon, without it being because they don’t believe that they have the authority to change it.

I’m not saying that no Protestants agree with you, but at least in that one respect, I think you are not with the mainstream of either mainline or evangelical Protestants.

Regards,

–Jen

 

[Lutheranteach]

The Orthodox have never canonized scripture, so this statement is somewhat false… The CC most certainly has, though Eastern Rite churches do make use of not officially canonized Septuigant books.

This argument isn’t really a very good one against the Duetero books at all, and it certainly offers no justification for Martin Luther on his own authority tossing them out.

Okay, one more time. LUTHER’S TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE HAD ALL THE BOOKS THE CATHOLIC BIBLE HAD.