Question regarding the Canon

[Crimson_Seraph]

Greetings and Salutations.

I have a question regarding the canon of Scripture and would like it answered from a Catholic perspective.

I have often heard it said that we Protestants have a “mutilated Bible” because ours lacks the Deuterocanon. I’ve heard it said that the Septuagint (of which I have several copies) has these books and that it was the Bible of the Apostles.

So I have this question. The books considered holy by the Eastern Orthodox are also contained within the Septuagint yet the Catholics reject these as Scripture. I am speaking of the books of I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the 3rd and 4th Books of Maccabees.

Why don’t Catholics acknowledge these books being that they are contained within the Septuagint? I’m just curious as to the reason, be it doctrinal or tradition or what have you.

 

[jmcrae]

The 46 books that we currently have in our Old Testament correspond to those books named in the lists most commonly given in a number of documents of the Early Church, especially documents arising from the Councils of Carthage and Hippo (with slight variations) - this is the list that was used by St. Jerome when he put together the Vulgate (which is still considered the “official Bible” of the Catholic Church), and is also the same list that was accepted and closed at the Council of Trent.

So, bottom line, the answer is “Tradition.”

I hope that helps you.

 

[broski234]

Greetings and Salutations.

I have a question regarding the canon of Scripture and would like it answered from a Catholic perspective.

I have often heard it said that we Protestants have a “mutilated Bible” because ours lacks the Deuterocanon. I’ve heard it said that the Septuagint (of which I have several copies) has these books and that it was the Bible of the Apostles.

So I have this question. The books considered holy by the Eastern Orthodox are also contained within the Septuagint yet the Catholics reject these as Scripture. I am speaking of the books of I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the 3rd and 4th Books of Maccabees.

Why don’t Catholics acknowledge these books being that they are contained within the Septuagint? I’m just curious as to the reason, be it doctrinal or tradition or what have you.

Why was it that all Christian bibles contained the 7 books of the O.T. that are in the Catholic Bible, but not in the Protestant Bible, from the time the canon was officially recognized by the Church in 382 A.D. until Martin Luther came along in the 1500’s? You do know that Martin Luther threw out those 7 books of the Bible based solely on his own authority, don’t you? You can’t use the excuse that the New Testament must allude to every OT book. The New Testament does not quote or allude to every Old Testament book. There are several O.T. books in your Protestant Bible that are nowhere quoted in the New Testament – Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, and Nahum. Plus, there are several places where the New Testament very definitely alludes to the 7 books of the Catholic Bible that are missing from the Protestant Bible. Here are just a few examples: Matt 6:14 – Sirach 28:2; Matt 27:39-43 – Wisdom 2:16-20; Rom 1:20-32 – Wisdom 13 & 14; Heb 11:35 – 2 Mac 7:1-42; James 1:19 – Sirach 5:11.

 

[broski234]

continued…

It is well known by Protestant scholars that the Sadducees only accepted the first 5 books of the O.T. (the Pentateuch) as inspired Scripture. That’s it. Also, the Essenes, the Jewish sect from which we got the Dead Sea Scrolls, had a slightly different canon than the Pharisees. So there was much dispute amongst the Jews regarding the canon of Scripture. Plus, are you not aware that 2/3 of the quotes in the New Testament come from the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), which contains the 7 books that Catholics have in their O.T. that Protestants do not?

You do know that many Christians disputed as to whether or not Revelation was inspired, don’t you? Other disputed books were: 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, James, and Hebrews. Plus there were books that many early Christians considered inspired that are not now in the canon. The Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, The Letter of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Teachings of the Apostles (The Didache), The Gospel of Paul, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Gospel of Peter, and others.

Is it obvious by reading Paul’s Letter to Philemon that it is inspired Scripture? And, is that your opinion or does the Bible somewhere tell us this? If it’s not in the Bible, then how come you believe it?

 

[broski234]

Greetings and Salutations.

So I have this question. The books considered holy by the Eastern Orthodox are also contained within the Septuagint yet the Catholics reject these as Scripture. I am speaking of the books of I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the 3rd and 4th Books of Maccabees.

Why don’t Catholics acknowledge these books being that they are contained within the Septuagint? I’m just curious as to the reason, be it doctrinal or tradition or what have you.

The Eastern Orthodox didn’t come around till well after the bible was canonized. It was the Catholic Church who determined the canon of scripture. Which was inspired and which was not? 3rd and 4th Maccabees, etc were not considered inspired, therefore, not included. The 7 deuterocanonical books in my bible that aren’t in your protestant bible, were indeed in the Septuagint. These books were accepted by all who were Christians (Which were Catholic) until the coming of Luther.

 

[victus]

Greetings and Salutations.

I have a question regarding the canon of Scripture and would like it answered from a Catholic perspective.

I have often heard it said that we Protestants have a “mutilated Bible” because ours lacks the Deuterocanon. I’ve heard it said that the Septuagint (of which I have several copies) has these books and that it was the Bible of the Apostles.

So I have this question. The books considered holy by the Eastern Orthodox are also contained within the Septuagint yet the Catholics reject these as Scripture. I am speaking of the books of I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, and the 3rd and 4th Books of Maccabees.

Why don’t Catholics acknowledge these books being that they are contained within the Septuagint? I’m just curious as to the reason, be it doctrinal or tradition or what have you.

Actually it comes down to the word “canonical.” Yes it is true that the Septuagint does contain more books than the Catholic Bible…so therefore seeing that it is already a Greek translation the Orthodox Church just uses the Septuagint out of Tradition.

Now the Catholic Church declared what books were to read in Church as Divine Scripture in Early Church Councils such as the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html?highlight=divine,scripture#highlight
These books agree with the Catholic Canon of Scripture, but if you notice this is speaking about what books are to be read in Church as Divinely Inspired. The Orthodox accept these Early Church Councils because at the Council of Trullo in 692 all Early Church Councils were ratified and accepted and to be kept. So the meaning of the word “Canonical” did not mean what books are in the Bible but what books are only allowed to be read in the Liturgy. Those other books in the Septuagint can never be read in Church as Divinely Inspired.