Protestants: Why do you have less books in your bibles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Harpazo

Guest
In the late 4th century by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo, the Canon of the Bible was decided. The books were:
*
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.*

Why do you, the Protestant Christians, have an altered Bible? What are the reasons? Did the Holy Spirit come upon the Reformers and tell them to dispel certain books?

If you believe the Bible is inspired, why not have the whole Bible? 👍

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_the_Bible

Discuss!

In Pax Christi
Andrew

BTW, I used Wikipedia, because I know that if I posted a Catholic site with the same information, I would be given labels, and accusations would be made…it just wouldn’t be a pretty sight. 😃
 
Yes. The Holy Spirit allowed the Church to be in error for 1500 years until finally coming upon Martin Luther, allowing him and the millions of other Protestants to finally see the truth as each interpreted it, thus saving them from the Devil’s church. 👍
 
jfallaw said:
Yes. The Holy Spirit allowed the Church to be in error for 1500 years until finally coming upon Martin Luther
Click to expand...
Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well.

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED
The total number of references to the Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611 is 113. Of this number, 102 are in the Old Testament, and 11 in the New. The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha are as follows:

Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 2 Esdras 1:30
Mat 27:43 Wisdom 2:15-16
Luke 6:31 Tobit 4:15
Luke 14:13 Tobit 4:7
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
Rom 9:21 Wisdom 15:7
Rom 11:34 Wisdom 9:13
2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 1:3 Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35 2 Maccabees 7

bible-researcher.com/canon10.html
apostate.com/religion/bible-versions.html

Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

The early church was founded by Hellenistic Jews; naturally, they used the Septuagint. There are passages in the gospels and epistles where Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint: 300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So while the Jews may have settled on the Palestinian canon by the early first century, the Christian church did not. apostate.com/2.0/english-bible-versions

skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm

Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint

the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35).
 
First, the Jews have the Oracles of God.

Rom 3:1-2
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Second, Jesus named the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias.

Luk 11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

“The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.”

Third, the 3 categories of the Oracles of God are the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. Jesus used the word “Psalms” not writings.

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the PSALMS, concerning me.

Fourth, the KJV Old Testament contains the exact same books as the Jews Bible. They are just in different order.

Fifth, the Old Testament was for the Jew only (the custodians of the Oracles) written in Hebrew. The apocrypha was written in Greek.
 
The question of the Apocrypha is very complicated. To get to the root and really understand why Protestants did not (and do not) embrace it will require you to set your Catholic hat aside for a moment and consider the rationale behind the decision. You definitely do not have to agree with it- but the thread is asking **Protestants **why we have less books, so here is an attempt at an explanation…

In the early years of Christianity, the Palestinian Jews had a canon corresponding to the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament. They did not accept the writings of the Apocrypha that the Greek Jews did in the Septuagint.

The early Church was divided on this geographically. Those residing in the east near Palestine accepted the Palestinian Jews’ stance of rejecting these books, while the Christians of the west followed Augustine and and accepted them as Scripture.

During the Reformation, most Protestants decided to accept the view of the early eastern Christians.

Personally, I am a big fan of 1 and 2 Maccabees. I have used 1 Maccabees in my studies of the prophet Zechariah and found it quite useful. We are also aware that New Testament authors eluded to Apocryphal writings in the case of Moses’ body (Jude), Hebrews 11:15, etc.
 
In the second century Bc, Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, had translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Tradition had it that this translation was the work of 70 (or 72) scholars, and accordingly the result was known as the Septuagint (often written as LXX). The LXX contains six or more books (there is some leeway here) not found in the standard Hebrew text, known as the Masoretic Text (or Mt), and sometimes reads differently from the Mt in particular verses. The New Testament writers, except for Matthew, when they are quoting the Old Testament, usually quote from the LXX. The differences in readings between the Mt and the LXX were formerly explained by assuming that the LXX translators were sometimes not very good translators. However, very ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible, recently found at Qumran and elsewhere, often agree with the LXX against the Mt. Accordingly, it is now generally supposed that the LXX is a fairly accurate translation of Hebrew manuscripts available at the time, and that sometimes the manuscripts that the LXX translators worked from differed from the manuscripts that became the basis for the standardised Hebrew text that we know today.
justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/256.html

Authorized in 1604 and published in 1611, the King James version naturally is based on the TR. When it was created, there was no demand for critical editions

The History of the Textus Receptus
The success of Erasmus’s edition soon called forth new Greek testaments, all of them based largely on his. The first of these was published by Aldus Manutius in 1518 –

Erasmus’s third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The “Three Heavenly Witnesses” in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus “for the sake of his oath.” Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.

Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus’s corrections are still visible in the manuscript 2.)

Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2ap, and 1r. In addition, he was able to consult 1eap, 4ap, and 7p. Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition – and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed “corruption” of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts. Even those who favour the Byzantine text cannot be overly impressed with Erasmus’s choice of manuscripts; they are all rather late

Not only is 1r an Andreas manuscript rather than purely Byzantine, but it is written in such a way that Erasmus could not always tell text from commentary and based his reading on the Vulgate. Also, 1r is defective for the last six verses of the Apocalypse. To fill out the text, Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript – but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).

Thus it will be conceded by all reputable scholars – even those who favour the Byzantine text – that the Textus Receptus, in all its various forms, has no textual authority whatsoever. Were it not for the fact that it has been in use for so long as a basis for collations, it could be mercifully forgotten. What a tragedy, then, that it was the Bible of Protestant Christendom for close to four centuries!
.
skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
 
Yes, I keep a copy of the Septuagint for New Testament Bible Studies. Greek and English, it’s pretty awesome. I really had to learn the roman numeral system, though. The LXX is almost impossible to use if you only know I - X!

Gee, I’m probably not your typical Protestant so maybe I should stop responding as one…
 
JesseW said:
The early Church was divided on this geographically. Those residing in the east near Palestine accepted the Palestinian Jews’ stance of rejecting these books, while the Christians of the west followed Augustine and and accepted them as Scripture.

During the Reformation, most Protestants decided to accept the view of the early eastern Christians.
Click to expand...
The early Church wasn’t divided on the “apocrypha” as far as I know. This can be proven by the fact that the Orthodox Christians have all the same deuterocanonical books the Catholics have.

In Pax Christi
Andrew
 
dosdog said:
During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
I have a book called The Portable Seminary, a great book, though written by and for Protestants. It makes the claim that the Jews always agreed on the Jewish canon, and they unanimously excluded the apocryphal books!
 
JesseW said:
Yes, I keep a copy of the Septuagint for New Testament Bible Studies. Greek and English, it’s pretty awesome. I really had to learn the roman numeral system, though. The LXX is almost impossible to use if you only know I - X!

Gee, I’m probably not your typical Protestant so maybe I should stop responding as one…
Click to expand...
Hey, don’t dis yourself! You know, as much as I disagree with Protestantism, I was one for 15 years and have met many, many wonderful people who were twenty times more serious about Christ than I. I do not doubt that every professed Christian actually loves Jesus above all debates on doctrinal differences. (well, I’m stretching-- some fundamental fanatics really just love hating others for their differences) You just happen to be a Christian who is realizing that you are not sure of your place in the grand Christian tapestry; at least, that is my understanding from reading some of your posts. I hope that you find the place where you will be most fulfilled and most able to serve God as He would want.
 
Why the Apocrypha Isn’t in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries.

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

Not even all Catholic “Church Fathers” believed the Apocrypha was scripture.

This may be of interest to some… Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:

“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.”
Jerome
Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon
According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.

There are other spurious books.

These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
 
The Deuterocanonicals (AKA “Apocrypha”) were removed by Martin Luther, plain and simple. The Canon that was set at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo contain all of the books that Luther threw out and Protestants are still missing. Yes, the Deuterocanonicals are inspired.

The oldest known Christian document in existence today,. the Didache, quotes from Sirach:

“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

Look at the Early Church Fathers who quoted from them, as well:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807frs.asp

Here you can see passages from the New Testament and the passages from the Deuterocanonicals which they parallel:

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

For example:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

See what you are “missing”?

Also, please see “Did the Catholic Church Add to the New Testament?”

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503sbs.asp
 
believers said:
First, the Jews have the Oracles of God.

Rom 3:1-2
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Second, Jesus named the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias.

Luk 11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

“The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.”

Third, the 3 categories of the Oracles of God are the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. Jesus used the word “Psalms” not writings.

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the PSALMS, concerning me.

Fourth, the KJV Old Testament contains the exact same books as the Jews Bible. They are just in different order.

Fifth, the Old Testament was for the Jew only (the custodians of the Oracles) written in Hebrew. The apocrypha was written in Greek.
Click to expand...
Ah, ****! Jesus said only the Old Testament is inspired! Now I have to relegate the entire New Testament to the Apocrypha!
 
Believers, I see you are appealing to the legend of the “Council of Jabneh”.

Now for the reality:

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

Some highlights:

“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added)…

The discussion over the books of the canon of the Old Testament continued among the Jews long after Jabneh, which demonstrates that the canon was still under discussion in the third century—well beyond the apostolic period. The challenges to canonicity at Jabneh involved only Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, but the debate over the canon continued past Jabneh, even into the second and third centuries. Even the Hebrew canon accepted by Protestants today was disputed by the Jews for two hundred years after Christ.
  1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.
  2. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.
  3. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.
  4. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).
Even if the rabbis at Jabneh did have the authority to make such a canonical determination and had closed the canon, who says they had the authority from God to make such a binding determination? Why should Christians accept their determination? God had publicly turned aside from the Jews as his “prophetic voice” twenty years earlier when Jerusalem was destroyed and razed by fire. God judged them and rejected their old wineskins. The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the gospel) and new wineskins (the Church). Why accept the unauthoritative rabbis’ determination rather than the Church’s?

Now look at the Canon set by the bishops at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo:

Canon 24 at the Council of Carthage

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
  • Genesis.
  • Exodus.
  • Leviticus.
  • Numbers.
  • Deuteronomy.
  • Joshua the Son of Nun.
  • The Judges.
  • Ruth.
  • The Kings, iv. books.
  • The Chronicles, ij. books.
  • Job.
  • The Psalter.
  • The Five books of Solomon.
  • The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
  • Isaiah.
  • Jeremiah.
  • Ezechiel.
  • Daniel.
  • Tobit.
  • Judith.
  • Esther.
  • Ezra, ij. books.
  • Macchabees, ij. books.
  • The New Testament.
  • The Gospels, iv. books.
  • The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
  • The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
  • The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
  • The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
  • The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
  • The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
  • The Revelation of John, j. book.
 
truthnlight said:
Why the Apocrypha Isn’t in the Bible.

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
Click to expand...
None of the NT books are written in Hebrew, either. Also, the Jews don’t accept the NT as scripture, either. What’s your point? Do we need the Jews to tell us what scripture is?
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Click to expand...
Where are the pasages in which the NT authors claim to be speaking under inspiration?
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries.
Click to expand...
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
Click to expand...
So what? The NT records Judas killing himself in two different manners. Does that negate the truth that he killed himself?
Not even all Catholic “Church Fathers” believed the Apocrypha was scripture.
Click to expand...
This may be of interest to some… Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:
Click to expand...
“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.”
Jerome
Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon
According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.
Click to expand...
So what? Not every man is perfect. Even the Church fathers can and did make mistakes. The Church doesn’t base her doctrines and matters of faith on the opinion of one man, otherwise we would all be Lutherans! The pope and Bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, defined the Canon.
There are other spurious books.
Click to expand...
These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.
Click to expand...
The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel
Click to expand...
Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:
Click to expand...
First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Click to expand...
 
believers said:
Fifth, the Old Testament was for the Jew only (the custodians of the Oracles) written in Hebrew. The apocrypha was written in Greek.
Click to expand...
One of the key issues in the first-century Jewish mind regarding the canon was not necessarily inspiration but resisting the Christian evangelization of the Jews and Gentiles. It was an issue of Jew versus the new Christian teaching and the Christians’ use of the Jewish Greek Scripture. It would seem rather strange for a Protestant to choose the truncated canon chosen by the Jewish leaders and by so doing fall on the side of the anti-Christian, disenfranchised Jew in this matter.

We do not know much about the deliberations at Jabneh, but we do know that they mentioned the Gospels of the New Testament. They mentioned them specifically in order to reject them. (The rabbis whom believers trusts to determine the Canon of the Old Testament, rejected the Gospels at Jabneh!!!) F. F. Bruce writes, “Some disputants also asked whether the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sira (Ecclesiasticus), and the gilyonim (Aramaic Gospel writings) and other books of the minim (heretics, including Jewish Christians), should be admitted, but here the answer was uncompromisingly negative” (The Books and the Parchments [Fleming H. Revell, 1984], 88).

Many Protestants accept the Jewish opposition to the Catholic canon of Scripture because it supports them in their anti-Catholicism. Catholics, on the other hand, have accepted the determination and canon of the new covenant people of God, those who are the new priesthood (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9), the new wineskin. As we noticed earlier, Geisler comments, “Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law, the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits for their own canon” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, 169).

Am I supposed to accept the alleged determination of the rabbis as authoritative and binding upon my soul, when the mantle of authority has been passed on to the Church by an act of the Holy Spirit? Does Geisler give his readers this historical information and timeline, reminding them that God had turned aside from the Jewish people and destroyed their temple before their unauthoritative “council” rejected the Gospels and the “whole Christian canon,” including the New Testament?

The canon of the Old Testament was not closed at Jabneh, nor were the deuterocanonicals excluded from the Old Testament there. Who has the authority from God to determine and close the canon of Scripture? Simply put, the Church.

The Jewish hierarchy during the time of Christ claimed authority to bind and loose, which was a clearly understood technical term, but Jesus specifically appointed a new hierarchy over the “new Israel”—the Church—and transferred to this new magisterium the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). The Church was thus appointed to speak for God, and the final canon of Scripture would thus fall under its authority.

Protestant author Paul Achtemeier tells us, “Eastern and Roman Catholic tradition generally considered the Old Testament ‘apocryphal’ books to be canonical.** It was not until the Protestant Reformation that these** books were clearly denied canonical status (in Protestant circles). The Roman church, however,** continues** to affirm their place in the canon of Scripture” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. [Harper & Row, c1985], 69).

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
 
JesseW said:
Gee, I’m probably not your typical Protestant so maybe I should stop responding as one…
Click to expand...
Maybe, you should just quit the charade and come home to the Catholic Church…what is holding you back?
 
Maybe, you should just quit the charade and come home to the Catholic Church…what is holding you back?
Click to expand...
Good question. I still have a journey ahead of me. I am reading the Church Fathers in their entirety, studying apologists on both sides and weighing the arguments, and praying A LOT. It’s a huge decision not to be taken lightly.

There are still several Catholic doctrines that I don’t understand and I don’t want to be a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what is and is not acceptable to me. If there are any I can’t accept, I can’t make the transition. But, there are other forums for those questions. I don’t really have an issue with the deuterocanonical books.
 
JesseW said:
Good question. I still have a journey ahead of me. I am reading the Church Fathers in their entirety, studying apologists on both sides and weighing the arguments, and praying A LOT. It’s a huge decision not to be taken lightly.

There are still several Catholic doctrines that I don’t understand and I don’t want to be a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what is and is not acceptable to me. If there are any I can’t accept, I can’t make the transition. But, there are other forums for those questions. I don’t really have an issue with the deuterocanonical books.
Click to expand...
Start post questions on those issues. Maybe we can help explain them. My boss has a habit of calling issues, “opportunities”.
 
Harpazo said:
In the late 4th century by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo, the Canon of the Bible was decided. The books were:
*
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.*

Why do you, the Protestant Christians, have an altered Bible? What are the reasons? Did the Holy Spirit come upon the Reformers and tell them to dispel certain books?

If you believe the Bible is inspired, why not have the whole Bible? 👍

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_the_Bible

Discuss!

In Pax Christi
Andrew

BTW, I used Wikipedia, because I know that if I posted a Catholic site with the same information, I would be given labels, and accusations would be made…it just wouldn’t be a pretty sight. 😃
Click to expand...
While you may not agree with him, I would suggest that you read William Webster’s articles on the New Testament canon from the beginning of the Church to the Reformation. He shows that the acceptance of the Apocrypha was far from universal.

christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart1.html

christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The last two links deal particularly with the Church from the beginning to the Reformation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top