Question about Catholic Bible

[Fab82]

catholic.com/radio/shows/why-catholic-bibles-are-bigger-5560

I had a conversation with a Protestant who believed the KJV was the first Bible to be made. He was really taught this and he really believed it. I used the above video for him to get some understanding. I also learned a few new things and it also explains Martin Luther’s position. I hope this helps you.

 

[maryj]

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Canon_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

 

[Anna_Scott]

Is it true that there are several other books of the Bible in the Catholic Bible? Why do Protestants claim the other books not included are not “spirit-breathed?” That’s what they told me. The books that were not included were not “God-breathed.”
I guess that is what I am wondering. The person who told me this had other ideas that seemed to go against Christ’s teachings. I was pretty much laughed out of that church. And forced out by nasty gossip and slander.
And is it okay if a Protestant chooses the Catholic Bible over the Protestant one? A lot of people I know wouldn’t like it if I started reading the Catholic Bible. But I want to know for myself what is true.

Jesusismyfriend,

Actually, Martin Luther did not remove the Deuterocanonical Books. In his German translation, Luther grouped together Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees as “Apocrypha.” He grouped Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation together as Non-Canonical Books. However, Luther did not believe all Books carried equal status as inspired Scripture.

The 1611 King James Bible contained the Deuterocanonical Books and these Books remained in the King James Bible for nearly 300 years. Publishers realized it was cheaper to print and ship the King James Bible without the Deuterocanonical Books, thinking most people wouldn’t notice. As it turns out, they didn’t. So, part of the reason for removal was purely financial.

There are many online articles on the history of the Biblical Canon and the Deuterocanonical Books (known to Protestants as Apocrypha.) These Books are also included in the Anglican Canon (some Anglicans considered them inspired as all Books; some do not.)

The Greek Orthodox Canon differs from the Catholic and Anglican Canon; and if I recall correctly; the Greek Orthodox Canon may even differ somewhat from the Russian Orthodox. Also, I think the Ethiopian Coptic Canon is the only one to include Enoch.

I’m open to correction, if my memory is off a bit. I am, after all, more than half a century old.

Peace,
Anna

 

[mackbrislawn]

Is it true that there are several other books of the Bible in the Catholic Bible? Why do Protestants claim the other books not included are not “spirit-breathed?” That’s what they told me. The books that were not included were not “God-breathed.”
I guess that is what I am wondering. The person who told me this had other ideas that seemed to go against Christ’s teachings. I was pretty much laughed out of that church. And forced out by nasty gossip and slander.
And is it okay if a Protestant chooses the Catholic Bible over the Protestant one? A lot of people I know wouldn’t like it if I started reading the Catholic Bible. But I want to know for myself what is true.

The early church used the Septuagint as their Old Testament bible. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, done some 200 years before Christ, and contains the deutero-canonical books that are disputed, which Protestants call “apocrypha.” Since the earliest Christians accepted this as their OT, the Catholic church today still does.

At the Reformation, since everything was in dispute, why not dispute what should be in the Bible? Because of his theological preferences, Luther did not want to consider James, Revelation, and the deutero-canonical as truly inspired. However, because Luther’s friends thought otherwise, James and Revelation remained in the Protestant New Testament canon. Hence Protestants still have the same 27 NT books as Catholic.

However, the deutero-canonical OT books contained passages that seemed to support the concept of purgatory, so they became a less than inspired part of the bible. As has been pointed out, for a considerable time, the “apocrypha” was included in Protestant bibles, but was not thought of as inspired. I myself do not think it is important whether they are inspired or not, because in any event they are a witness to what was believed by the Jews at the time of Christ.

So, the apocrypha was always in scripture, but now is missing from most Protestant thinking. Hence, they say the Catholic church “added” books to the bible. If so, the eastern churches added as well!

 

[mackbrislawn]

That’s not correct. The canon you are referring to was accepted in the Latinate church only, not universally. The other ancient churches developed their own biblical canons which vary with the Latinate canon as well as with each other.

Question. Did the other ancient churches include the deutero-canon in their OT?

I would be curious where you found this in your research, because it’s not correct. Luther’s theology of the Bible has nothing to do with what was or was not accepted by the Jews.

 

[pablope]

That’s not correct. The canon you are referring to was accepted in the Latinate church only, not universally. The other ancient churches developed their own biblical canons which vary with the Latinate canon as well as with each other.

That’s not correct; Luther includes them as Scripture.

but did Luther treat them as such? By his action of separating them in a non-paged section…shows his contempt for them…don’t you think so?

 

[pablope]

That’s not correct. The canon you are referring to was accepted in the Latinate church only, not universally. The other ancient churches developed their own biblical canons which vary with the Latinate canon as well as with each Scripture.

That is because the bible was never intended to extract doctrine…as Protestants generally do…the bible was used for readings for the mass/liturgy. It seems Protestants were the ones who started using the bible tocreate their doctrines.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

Well it’s not considered “spirit-breathed” if you are a post-christian Jew. We include the deutercanonical books because they were in the Septuagint, and the gospel writers (i.e. First century Jewish Christians,) quoted extensively from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. You see, Alexander the Great sought to spread the Greek language and culture to the nations he conccured, including ancient Israel. Well you’ve probably read that the Jews were given the “oracls of God” in Paul’s letter to the Romans, this being do to there being chosen as God’s people and they experiencing and writing of their relationship with God. Well after the hellenization of Alexander the Great, most Jews began writing in Greek Koine, so the deutercanonical books we have were taken out during the Reformation because Luther assumed that they were added by the Church and uninspired because they weren’t written in Hebrew.
I ran into the same problem coming into the Church. I read the book of Tobit and knew it followed the same inspiration as the other books I’ve been reading.

Hope this has helped, good luck, and God bless.

 

[hockeyfan]

That’s not correct. The canon you are referring to was accepted in the Latinate church only, not universally. The other ancient churches developed their own biblical canons which vary with the Latinate canon as well as with each other.

I will start with this. Though it is true the Eastern Orthodox canon is not exactly like a Roman Catholic canon, they accept all of the same books as canon. bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm

So, the flaw to that reasoning is that all of those books were established. (everywhere) The fact that a couple of churches had a couple of extra books is an irrelevant point.

I would be curious where you found this in your research, because it’s not correct. Luther’s theology of the Bible has nothing to do with what was or was not accepted by the Jews.

Here is a good explanation of the history of the Deutrocanon. It is long. newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

That’s not correct; Luther includes them as Scripture.

No, he included them in an appendix calling them apocrypha.

 

[hockeyfan]

I would also be curious to also know what you mean by “tried to remove” books and your understanding of the historical facts surrounding this attempt.

Here is a good youtube video. (It cites sources) youtube.googleapis.com/v/PjvXbotd9Lw?fs=1&hl=en_US%22%3E%3C%2Fparam%3E%3Cparam&fb_source=message

I would also be curious as to your evidence that that the Council of Nicaea “compiled the Bible.”

I believe you know this, but I believe wondrousgnat misspoke when he said this.

When the bible was compiled at the Council of Nicea the seven books (Apocrypha) were included

I am sure he meant Hippo, Carthage and Rome. Especially Hippo. You seem to be knowledgeable about this. Why take such a cheap shot?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Question. Did the other ancient churches include the deutero-canon in their OT?

Most, yes–along with various other texts. And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church excludes 1 & 2 Maccabees, for example.

Luther accepted as inspired the OT canon that was also accepted by the Jews. The Jews had eventually rejected the Septuagint OT canon in the late 1st century at the “Council of Jamnia.” Which is logical, since the Septuagint was used by the Christians, and what the Christians used, the Jews would not.

Jewish views on the canon really have nothing to do with Luther’s conception of the canon. (As you may know, Luther was not particularly fond of Jews.)

There was no such thing as the Council of Jamnia, as has been discussed many times in this forum. If you do a search here I’m sure you can find relevant discussions, or just read the Wikipedia article on the topic.

As inspired Scripture?

The whole notion of “inspiration” as some determination of canonicity is pretty foreign to Reformation thinking and more part of the language of modern day Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism. Luther includes them as part of “Scripture.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I will start with this. Though it is true the Eastern Orthodox canon is not exactly like a Roman Catholic canon, they accept all of the same books as canon. bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm

So, the flaw to that reasoning is that all of those books were established. (everywhere) The fact that a couple of churches had a couple of extra books is an irrelevant point.

Actually, there is no such thing as “the Eastern Orthodox canon.” There were/are various Eastern Churches with various canons, all of which are not the same as the Latinate canon. This is not insignificant because 1) these churches in total would have likely constituted the majority of Christians at the time, and thus the Latinate canon was far from “universal”–which is what I was objecting to (and certainly more than “a couple of churches”) and 2) it shows that the decisions made by Rome on an important matter were either rejected, ignored or not communicated.

No, he included them in an appendix calling them apocrypha.

No, they are not in an appendix; they are at the end of the Old Testament. Take a look at Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible if you want to verify this.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

but did Luther treat them as such? By his action of separating them in a non-paged section…shows his contempt for them…don’t you think so?

I’m not sure what you mean by a non-paged section; but they are listed and included as part of the Old Testament.

That’s not to say that these books were popular with Luther by any means; he did not like them; he did not think that they were “carriers of Christ.” (Part of Luther’s biblical theology in general is that not all parts of the Bible are of equal importance to salvation.)

But the point is that Luther didn’t consider himself as sort of a “Protestant Pope” who could/would remove things willy-nilly from the Bible. (One finds variations on the assertion “Luther removed books…” quite often here, unfortunately .) Luther provides you with his honest opinion of the books and their flaws. He simultaneously includes them with Sacred Scripture and leaves it up to you.

 

[pablope]

I’m not sure what you mean by a non-paged section; but they are listed and included as part of the Old Testament.

Sorry…I meant…he did put them as part of his Bible…but he placed them between the OT and NT as sort of an appendix…without page numbers…making it hard to locate them.

This is the info I received…so with you having more historical knowledge than me…can you verify if this is indeed true (and sources please).

And he did the same with the NT books he did not like…and he rearranged the order of NT books…but am not sure if his first bible is where he did this?

That’s not to say that these books were popular with Luther by any means; he did not like them; he did not think that they were “carriers of Christ.” (Part of Luther’s biblical theology in general is** that not all parts of the Bible are of equal importance to salvation.) **

 

[Iron_Donkey]

But the point is that Luther didn’t consider himself as sort of a “Protestant Pope” who could/would remove things willy-nilly from the Bible. (One finds variations on the assertion “Luther removed books…” quite often here, unfortunately .) Luther provides you with his honest opinion of the books and their flaws. He simultaneously includes them with Sacred Scripture and leaves it up to you.

Pulled off a quick google search:

Christ’s words in John, about purging the Branch, have been applied to purgatory by a certain Vincent [of Beauvais; d. 1264], than whom no one ever twists the sense of Scripture more . . . The text in Maccabees [1] is left, and is quite plain. But that book does not make articles of faith, nor do the Fathers consider it an authority; the second book especially is several times rejected by Jerome.

[1] [Notes from this book] 2 Maccabees, 12:46, quoted supra, no. 163.

(Letter of Luther to Georg Spalatin, 7 November 1519; in 245-246; in Preserved Smith, translator and editor, Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Vol. I: 1507-1521, Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society, 1913; from Enders, II, 224)

So whatever you are trying to claim about what Luther thought about Scripture, the following facts are clear:

1. Pre-Luther (certainly close to his time, but, I would argue, dating to antiquity with a couple disagreements popping up now and again), these texts were considered to be scripture in the same way as other scripture and in (at least pretty close to) the same way we consider things scripture now - inerrant sources of truth.
2. Luther thought that some scripture was authoritative in (at least pretty near) the same sense we do now.
3. Luther did not think the books he called “Apocrypha” were authoritative in the same sense we do now, nor in any other real sense. This is clear - he says that Maccabees, for example supports purgatory, but that this doesn’t matter because that book is not authoritative.

So, what you are left with is Luther running into a faith that considered books full, authoritative Scripture, then making his own version that did not.

No he did not “remove them from the bible” in the sense that he still included those words in there, and if you insist that his conception of apocrypha counts as scripture, then he did not consider them un-scriptural. But this is all word games. Clearly he “demoted them,” if you will, from authoritative guides to doctrine to merely useful things that might be helpful to read every now and then. In modern language, this is the same thing as “removing from the bible (not physically, of course)” or “saying they are no longer scripture.”

As a side note, St. Jerrome’s argument (which I believe Luther used, and which relates to which books were originally in Hebrew) has been dealt with already. I highly suggest listening to the Catholic radio thing linked by a previous poster.

 

[hockeyfan]

Actually, there is no such thing as “the Eastern Orthodox canon.” There were/are various Eastern Churches with various canons, all of which are not the same as the Latinate canon. This is not insignificant because 1) these churches in total would have likely constituted the majority of Christians at the time, and thus the Latinate canon was far from “universal”–which is what I was objecting to (and certainly more than “a couple of churches”) and 2) it shows that the decisions made by Rome on an important matter were either rejected, ignored or not communicated.

I am aware of the fact that there is no “Eastern Orthodox canon.” I showed you a Greek one because it is fairly mainstream. I noticed that you cited the Ethiopian one on another post. Probably the only example of one with one missing from it. That is a very unusual and isolated example. In general, Eastern Orthodox add, not subtract.

No, they are not in an appendix; they are at the end of the Old Testament. Take a look at Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible if you want to verify this.

A distinction without a difference. The point was that it is separated from the rest of the New Testament. Like the kid standing in the corner in the fifth grade.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Iron Donkey,

Pre-Luther (certainly close to his time, but, I would argue, dating to antiquity with a couple disagreements popping up now and again), these texts were considered to be scripture in the same way as other scripture and in (at least pretty close to) the same way we consider things scripture now - inerrant sources of truth.

Not quite so, Cardinal Catejan can be shown as an example that there was scholarly dispute of the apocrypha immidiatley prior to Luther. - thesearewritten.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html
Luther stood quite happily in the scholarly discussions of his day.

1. Luther did not think the books he called “Apocrypha” were authoritative in the same sense we do now, nor in any other real sense. This is clear - he says that Maccabees, for example supports purgatory, but that this doesn’t matter because that book is not authoritative.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/why-luther-removed-2-maccabees-from.html

Lincs.

 

[wondrousgnat]

I see that I have posts that are answered by attacks. It seems a number of my recent posts have inspired attacks on my opinions. Yesterday I was going to respond to an attack in a different thread but realized it would only inspire more.

Maybe I need to rethink how I participate in this room.

 

[MrsE1022]

If that’s true, then your wife’s pastor was sadly mistaken. (The assertion and language sounds much more like what people post here at CAF, to be honest–except for the part about the Bible being compiled at the Council of Nicaea, that’s from The DaVinci Code.)

To my mind, there’s a difference between presenting incomplete information and perpetuating inaccurate information—particularly when answering someone who is simply asking and question and looking for information and not, say, debating a topic.

Your comments state that the information given to the poster is incorrect but you don’t make any attempt to “correct” them. Perhaps if you have more knowledge about the Deuterocanon than we do you could let us know what IS “correct”?

 

[pablope]

Hi Iron Donkey,

Not quite so, Cardinal Catejan can be shown as an example that there was scholarly dispute of the apocrypha immidiatley prior to Luther. - thesearewritten.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html
Luther stood quite happily in the scholarly discussions of his day.

Lincs.

Well, I am surprised you have not mentioned Jerome at all yet?

It seems to attempt to justify the actions of Luther, you have to hang your coattail on the opinions of other catholics of the day.

Why can’t you let Luther rise and fall on his actions by himself…let Luther judge Luther, not what some other catholic did or did not do.

And there is one difference between Cajetan and Luther…did Cajetan reorganize the Bible books like Luther did?

Did Cajetan place the DC books in an unpaged appendix at the end of the OT like Luther did?

Did Cajetan do the same with some of the NT books, like Luther did?

Did Cajetan oppose the pope, like Luther did? Did he propose it as official teaching? Or did it just remain as opinion?

Did Cajetan’s actions or opinion lead to the splitting of the Church, like Luther’s actions?