Reasons for dropping 7 books from the canon?

[Crumpy]

The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford U Press) has an appendix with a discussion of Hebrew texts.

For a very long time, Jewish authorities did not have the concept of “canonicity.” There is no bedrock text that eliminates the need for other versions. Masoretic is a word that derives from Mesorah which means tradition. It won out because it physically survived, while other Hebrew versions apparently did not.

It was adopted as the Jewish version because it was in Hebrew, and it was thought to be the closest text to the originals scrolls. But, Jewish scholars and all scholars consult all the versions to get the best sense of the meaning.

Oddly, the reference hebrew text used for developing the Septuagint is not known. Jewish scholars would love to see where the Septuagint came from.

Aside: The JSB has a comment that Jewish scholars have also retreated from saying definitively the author of the books of the OT.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Ok, but I wasn’t suggesting anything like that––I don’t think that is an adequate response to the reality of diverse canons. It just suggests let’s not argue about it, or it is as teachccd said––a relativist position.

So then how would you respond to the diversity of canons?

From my perspective I don’t think it really is possible to make a valid argument one way or the other when you have different apostolic churches coming to different conclusions. It would be a different case if there had ever been a point of universal agreement on the canon and then there were later shifts in opinion.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Incorrect.
The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books. The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.

The books that actually are the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

No one else has any authority to define or change what Christ’s Church has taught infallibly.

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on Sept 17, 2010 (EWTN):
The Catholic Bible has 46 books in the Old Testament, the Protestant Bible has 39 books in the O.T. Both have 27 books in the New Testament. Martin Luther removed 7 books from the O.T. when he wrote his German Bible. The first Bible translated from Hebrew & Greek by St. Jerome in 400 AD had all 46 OT + 27 NT as did the Latin Guttenburg Bible of the 15th c.

I’m not sure where you’ve been getting your information from (EWTN I guess?) but almost all of it is incorrect, to the point that it would be difficult to even respond to all of the errors here, so I will just respond to the most important ones. First of all, at the time of Jesus there was no “The Septuagint”–the book/codex hadn’t even been invented yet. What existed were translations of various parts of the Old Testament into Greek–there was no “table of contents” to show which books were considered canonical at the time or what the Septuagint was made up of.

Second, if you want to argue that the Septuagint list of books (whenever it was developed) is the authoritative list, then you have to explain why the Catholic Church excludes certain texts that are part of the Septuagint: Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, etc. You can’t on one hand say that you want to use the Septuagint as the authoritative lists and then exclude the parts of it that you don’t like.

Third, even though the N.T. was written in Greek and usually (though not always) the NT writers quote from the Septuagint, that doesn’t mean that Jesus spoke Greek or quoted from the Septuagint.

Fourth, the councils you cite (other than Trent) were not really councils at all, but were actually local synods of bishops. Their results were ONLY accepted in the West; no one universally uniform biblical canon was ever or probably will ever be accepted.

Finally, if Fr. John Trigilio honestly said that Luther removed 7 books from the Bible, then he is most likely guilty of calumny because the statement is false–and someone in his position should know better.

 

[Abu]

Dave Noonan #23
Finally, if Fr. John Trigilio honestly said that Luther removed 7 books from the Bible, then he is most likely guilty of calumny because the statement is false–and someone in his position should know better.

False and inanely derogatory.

Answer by David Gregson on March-11-2008 (EWTN):
“Protestants, beginning with Luther, rejected the deuterocanonicals, not because they were written later than other Old Testament books, but because they gave support to Catholic teaching. (Luther originally wanted to throw out the New Testament book of James for the same reason.) The deuterocanonicals were generally regarded as inspired Scripture for 1500 years before the Protestants dropped them. So it makes little sense to say that Catholics added these books, as if the Bible was ever without them until the Protestant Reformation.”

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on Aug-20-2010 (EWTN)
“So it was not the Catholic Church that ADDED seven books, it was the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther who REMOVED those seven books. Why? Because one of them, Maccabees, is used to formulate the doctrine of Purgatory. Luther already repudiated that teaching and justified himself by dumping those seven ‘deuterocanonical’ books.

“Ironically, the FIRST edition of the King James Bible HAD the seven books, albeit, they were inserted at the end of the Old Testament as ‘apocrypha’. Only an act of Parliament had them formally removed all together.

“The seven books found in the Septuagint were known and used by Jesus and His Disciples.”

As Jesus of Nazareth did not write anything and founded His Church on Simon Peter with primacy and infallibility, His followers wrote the New Testament and His Church infallibly declared which writings in both the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God, and no others. These writings are without error.

That anyone disagrees with the definition of Christ’s Church simply expresses the fact that they have cut themselves off from His Church carrying His authority. No other ecclesial community has any authority from Christ to go against His Church on faith or morals. It is a matter “of Faith” through the Council of Trent that the canon of Scripture contains the 46 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT. Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p246].

“Luther rejected the deuteron-canonical books and passages largely because they conflicted with his theological theories.” Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1988, p 132].

Continually evaded is the fact that only Christ’s Catholic Church has the authority to define which books comprise the Sacred Scriptures – She has done so.

 

[Pitcharan]

It is strange that Luther removed the 7 deutero-canonical books saying he was following the canon of the Jews. But many believe that he actually did it because Macabees 2 supports the Catholic teaching on Purgatory which Luther denied. Had Luther been told that Jews too believed in Purgatory, he would have been in a fix and left with no choice but to accept the 7 deutero-canonical books and / or Purgatory.

 

[patrick457]

My two cents.

As is mentioned, the whole concept of a Biblical ‘canon’ during the Second Temple period (at the time when Jesus lived) was still rather nebulous. There was the Torah, which Jews universally accepted. Then there was the Prophets, at which most would still agree. The whole issue seems to stem from the category known as the ‘Writings’ or Ketuvim: as we can see from the various versions of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, some books have had different versions circulating around (such as the ‘expanded’ Greek versions of Esther and Daniel, as well as ‘extra’ Psalms) and there are books which some have included but not others.

While the Torah is definitely recognized, and while Jews seem to have mostly made up their mind about most of the protocanonical books (the 39 undisputed books of the OT), the idea of a closed canon apparently did not exist yet: while these books are recognized as having authoritative status - some having a higher degree of authority than others - there was still no notion that these were the only authoritative writings.

(The whole ‘Council of Jamnia’ issue might crop up again I know, but that’s a matter for another time.)

Fast forward to the Christian era. Ever since Marcion published his beliefs that the ‘God’ of the Old Testament was actually an inferior creature, and that the NT God who sent Jesus - who for the record never really became human - was a superior Being and proposed a set canon of Scriptures to go with it (consisting of just an altered version of Luke’s Gospel and selected epistles of St. Paul) Christians have begun to define which books comprise the New Testament. The whole situation is really characteristic of Christian response to controversies and heresies: the Church would definitively define what orthodox belief only when someone comes and questions it.

Most of the controversies concerning the canon of Scripture in the early centuries seem to have gravitated on the NT and its books: the Septuagint’s OT canon, which was the standard for most Christians at the time - was still de facto and the Church had never officially drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon yet, though now and again some writers might express their personal views. In general, the Eastern Churches had a weaker feeling for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon compared to the West. The emphasis was more on stressing that the accepted books had spiritual value than on determing which books are ‘canonical’ or condemning rejected books as having no value at all. This is probably the reason why some Eastern Churches (the Ethiopian Church is a prime example) tend to have more books on their OT. (For the record, the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 decreed the Greek Orthodox canon, but since it was a local synod, it decrees were technically not obligatory unless accepted by all Orthodox Churches.)

Then the Reformation came. IMHO what really precipitated Trent’s official delineation of the canon of Scripture is not so much Luther’s personal opinions of some books - say, the Antilegomena - in the Western canon but rather the Protestant doctrine of the five Solas which he and others propagated, though it does seem that part of the reason why the reformers were against some books were because it was perceived to contradict certain Protestant beliefs, among others (that they were not extant in Hebrew, etc.) What Luther successfully did in his translation is to order the NT Antilegomena last and to move the Deuterocanon in a different section.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

False and inanely derogatory.

Answer by David Gregson on March-11-2008 (EWTN):
“Protestants, beginning with Luther, rejected the deuterocanonicals, not because they were written later than other Old Testament books, but because they gave support to Catholic teaching. (Luther originally wanted to throw out the New Testament book of James for the same reason.) The deuterocanonicals were generally regarded as inspired Scripture for 1500 years before the Protestants dropped them. So it makes little sense to say that Catholics added these books, as if the Bible was ever without them until the Protestant Reformation.”

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on Aug-20-2010 (EWTN)
“So it was not the Catholic Church that ADDED seven books, it was the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther who REMOVED those seven books. Why? Because one of them, Maccabees, is used to formulate the doctrine of Purgatory. Luther already repudiated that teaching and justified himself by dumping those seven ‘deuterocanonical’ books.

“Ironically, the FIRST edition of the King James Bible HAD the seven books, albeit, they were inserted at the end of the Old Testament as ‘apocrypha’. Only an act of Parliament had them formally removed all together.

“The seven books found in the Septuagint were known and used by Jesus and His Disciples.”

As Jesus of Nazareth did not write anything and founded His Church on Simon Peter with primacy and infallibility, His followers wrote the New Testament and His Church infallibly declared which writings in both the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God, and no others. These writings are without error.

That anyone disagrees with the definition of Christ’s Church simply expresses the fact that they have cut themselves off from His Church carrying His authority. No other ecclesial community has any authority from Christ to go against His Church on faith or morals. It is a matter “of Faith” through the Council of Trent that the canon of Scripture contains the 46 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT. Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p246].

“Luther rejected the deuteron-canonical books and passages largely because they conflicted with his theological theories.” Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1988, p 132].

Continually evaded is the fact that only Christ’s Catholic Church has the authority to define which books comprise the Sacred Scriptures – She has done so.

Sadly it looks as though you are receiving a great deal of misleading and even outright false information from the TV shows you have been watching and the apologetic material you are reading. I would simply encourage you to undertake your own critical investigation of the facts and not rely on these types of sources. Not everything one hears on TV is true.

Luther included the deuterocanonical texts in every Bible he published. If you want more details on the specifics of his biblical theology, go to post #9.

And it’s obvious that the rest of the world didn’t go along with the Latinate definition of the canon at the various points in time when they attempted to establish one. You are certainly free to believe that only the Latinate Church has the authority to set the canon, but you also have to account for the fact that these decisions weren’t accepted by the vast majority of the Church. And the fact that the Latinate Church didn’t seem to have a problem with said rejection of the Latin canon until the Reformation.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It is strange that Luther removed the 7 deutero-canonical books saying he was following the canon of the Jews. But many believe that he actually did it because Macabees 2 supports the Catholic teaching on Purgatory which Luther denied. Had Luther been told that Jews too believed in Purgatory, he would have been in a fix and left with no choice but to accept the 7 deutero-canonical books and / or Purgatory.

Luther never removed any books; this is a canard. See post #9.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Most of the controversies concerning the canon of Scripture in the early centuries seem to have gravitated on the NT and its books: the Septuagint’s OT canon, which was the standard for most Christians at the time

I think it would be hard to say that there was a standard Septuagint OT canon in the early centuries of the church, for certain prior to the invention of the codex. The simple fact that the Byzantine church has a longer canon than the Latinate church I think belies this statement. This assertion would also beg the question as to whether “most” (in terms of raw numbers) Christians were even Greek speaking/reading in the early centuries of the church; as Chrisitianity spread to places like Armenia (third and fourth century), Persia (third and fourth century), India and even China, the Septuagint texts quickly became proportionately less significant to Christianity as a whole.

…was still de facto and the Church had never officially drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon yet, though now and again some writers might express their personal views. In general, the Eastern Churches had a weaker feeling for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon compared to the West. The emphasis was more on stressing that the accepted books had spiritual value than on determing which books are ‘canonical’ or condemning rejected books as having no value at all. This is probably the reason why some Eastern Churches (the Ethiopian Church is a prime example) tend to have more books on their OT. (For the record, the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 decreed the Greek Orthodox canon, but since it was a local synod, it decrees were technically not obligatory unless accepted by all Orthodox Churches.)

Yes, by and large the Eastern Churches have a different theology of canonicity than does the Latinate Church, which I think I mentioned in a post above–probably #9. Although one shouldn’t paint with too broad a brush there either. Actually I think every Eastern Church has more books in their OT than does the Catholic Church.

 

[Abu]

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html
5 Myths about 7 Books
MARK SHEA
“When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture—the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek—which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture.

“The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly ‘added’ by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren’t the deuterocanonical books in today’s Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community."

Real Catholics need pay no attention to the fantasies being intruded…

 

[BrianH]

Mark Shea is making an assumption about the LXX. There is no list from the time of Christ. There are no copies from this time. One fact that cannot be denied is that two of the earliest copies have different books. These copies are several hundred years after the time of Christ.

 

[patrick457]

I think it would be hard to say that there was a standard Septuagint OT canon in the early centuries of the church, for certain prior to the invention of the codex. The simple fact that the Byzantine church has a longer canon than the Latinate church I think belies this statement. This assertion would also beg the question as to whether “most” (in terms of raw numbers) Christians were even Greek speaking/reading in the early centuries of the church; as Chrisitianity spread to places like Armenia (third and fourth century), Persia (third and fourth century), India and even China, the Septuagint texts quickly became proportionately less significant to Christianity as a whole.

Yes, by and large the Eastern Churches have a different theology of canonicity than does the Latinate Church, which I think I mentioned in a post above–probably #9. Although one shouldn’t paint with too broad a brush there either. Actually I think every Eastern Church has more books in their OT than does the Catholic Church.

Thanks for reminding that.

The reason why I said ‘most’ is, sure the Septuagint became less significant with the passage of time, but nevertheless its influence lingered on for quite a while, even when people quit using the actual translation itself (the various Latin translations before St. Jerome, the Slavonic, Syro-Hexaplar, Armenian, Georgian and Coptic versions - all based on the Septuagint - should be testimony to that). You have of course Syrian Christians who generally relied on Aramaic translations direct from a Hebrew text - I should mention that these same folks brought Christianity to most of the places you mention (India, China), and the Greeks who kept using the translation.

 

[Abu]

BrianH #31
Mark Shea is making an assumption about the LXX. There is no list from the time of Christ. There are no copies from this time. One fact that cannot be denied is that two of the earliest copies have different books. These copies are several hundred years after the time of Christ.

It is precisely because of individual choice and interpretation that Jesus is neglected. Jesus of Nazareth used the Septuagint, and His Church defined what books make up the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God – only She has His authority to do so.

As Jesus said to His Apostles with Peter as His Supreme Vicar: “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16).

A Glossary of Important Terms for Biblical Studies
by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.
The LXX was first translated and compiled around 250 BCE, probably in or near Alexandria, Egypt. The name “Septuagint” (meaning “seventy”) comes from an ancient Jewish legend that tells how 70 (or 72) scholars translated the whole collection (or at least the Torah) in 70 days.
catholic-resources.org/Bible/Glossary.htm

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on Sept-08-2006 (EWTN):
The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D.
tinyurl.com/793sr9p

Mark Shea’s *5 Myths about 7 Books *is well worth the attention it deserves.
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

 

[BrianH]

Yes some people assert that the LXX at the time of Christ had the Deuterocanonical books. But it is not based on anything but conjecture.

1. There are no lists from that time.
2. There are no existing copies of the LXX from that tiime.
3. The earliest existing ones contain different books for the OT. These are from around 200 years after Christ.
4. The LXX continued to be in flux and that is the reason for the different OT canons of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church.
   From your link

• Some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches today include up to 53 books in their Old Testament, based on the largest version of the Septuagint.

 

[Abu]

BrianH #34
The LXX continued to be in flux and that is the reason for the different OT canons of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church

The reason for the difference is simply that any other Church, which differs, does not assent to Christ’s institution of His Church on the Rock of Peter with Supreme authority to define which writings form Sacred Scripture as the Word of God.

“When certain people decided to snip some of this canon out in order to suit their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church’s Old Testament and always had been.” (Mark Shea).

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on Sept-08-2006 (EWTN):
tinyurl.com/793sr9p
In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.

Finally, in 1546, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional list of the Catholic Church.

Already, just a few decades after the death of Christ, we can clearly see all of the essential structures of the Catholic Church are in place. This was not some amorphous Christian community, as if Jesus founded Protestantism, or any other ecclesial community. It was the Catholic Church in historical continuity with the Catholic Church of today.

 

[BrianH]

The reason for their larger canon is that the LXX remained in flux in different areas. There was never a time in the history of Judaism that the contents of the LXX were set by any group prior to Christ or even during the time of Christ. If the LXX canon was set before Christ, who did it? IF it was always the churches OT canon, lets take the year 50 AD for example, who set the OT canon prior to 50 AD?

But lets look at a few examples of the OT canon prior to the regional synods at Hippo and Carthage. We can start with this one.
bible-researcher.com/cyril.html

 

[anodos]

This may be a slightly off-topic topic, but since there are some experts following this thread… (hi, experts! ) Several years ago I was studying the Book of Enoch and read that it was a part of the canon of scripture of some of the churches in Ethiopia. Do you know if this is fact (that it is actually considered to be scripture in some places, not just pious reading), and if so, do you know of any reliable resources for this type of study?
Many of the books and websites I came across at the time were accusing Christianity of conspiracy to suppress the truth of Enoch, but they were also gung-ho about crystal skulls having miraculous alien powers and autobiographies attributed to various gods. I was not sure if their information about Ethiopian scripture was legitimate.

If this doesn’t fit into the discussion, please ignore.

 

[Pitcharan]

Luther never removed any books; this is a canard. See post #9.

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on Sept-08-2006 (EWTN):
tinyurl.com/793sr9p
In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.

Do you think that Rev. Mark J. Gantley’s answer is a canard?

Do you believe that Luther never ever tampered with the scriptures and in no way contributed to the difference that exists between Catholic and Protestant Bibles?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Do you think that Rev. Mark J. Gantley’s answer is a canard?

Do you believe that Luther never ever tampered with the scriptures and in no way contributed to the difference that exists between Catholic and Protestant Bibles?

Yes, he is not telling the truth–and you really should ask yourself why that is the case. (Again, people seem to fall for anything they hear on the TV, which is really amazing to me.) The deuterocanonicals were indeed placed in a separate section between the Old and New Testament, but they were still part of the Bible. If you want to call it an appendix, fine, but you’re totally ignoring Luther’s system of Biblical theology and ordering of books. The information about James, Hebrews, the Letters of John and the Book of Revelation is just out-and-out false. And either way, it’s not “removing books.” Luther translated them and included them in The Bible.

Here was your statement: “It is strange that Luther removed the 7 deutero-canonical books saying he was following the canon of the Jews.” I see no support for that.

Much of this is explained earlier in the thread.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This may be a slightly off-topic topic, but since there are some experts following this thread… (hi, experts! ) Several years ago I was studying the Book of Enoch and read that it was a part of the canon of scripture of some of the churches in Ethiopia. Do you know if this is fact (that it is actually considered to be scripture in some places, not just pious reading), and if so, do you know of any reliable resources for this type of study?
Many of the books and websites I came across at the time were accusing Christianity of conspiracy to suppress the truth of Enoch, but they were also gung-ho about crystal skulls having miraculous alien powers and autobiographies attributed to various gods. I was not sure if their information about Ethiopian scripture was legitimate.

If this doesn’t fit into the discussion, please ignore.

Yes, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in their canon of scripture.