The 7 missing books of the protestant bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter concerneduser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

concerneduser

Guest
I have a question about the 7 missing books from the protestant bible. First of all, I have heard that these 7 books are not in the Hebrew bible. Why is this? I have heard that the reason why these 7 books are not even in the Hebrew bible is because the development of the cannon of the Christian bible started before the official Hebew bible was put together. Therefore resulting in the 7 books that WERE preached during the time of Jesus, to be later on dismissed by the Jews who put together the jewish bible. Is this true? Please respond with what you know as the origin of these 7 books. When they were written, and how are they in our bible, but not in the jewish bible. And other then the fact Luther didn’t agree with these books…what was his bases on taking them out? ALSO…are there any references to these scriptures, or stories within, that are in the rest of the bible? ( therefore at least you would have an acknowledgment of these scriptures/events by other scriptures which are not disputed)
 
concerneduser said:
First of all, I have heard that these 7 books are not in the Hebrew bible. Why is this?
Click to expand...
They were in the Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus and during the era of the Book of Acts. After the fall of Jerusalem and the scattering of Jews out of the Holy Land, when Judaism was reorganized, those books were removed because they were not originally
written in Hebrew. They were originally penned in Greek. Undoubtably there is more to the story, but the key point is that religious Jews dropped them from their own “Bible” after they were being circulated within Christian churches as part of the Christian scriptures, and they got into the set of Christian scriptures because they had been in the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles.
And other then the fact Luther didn’t agree with these books…what was his bases on taking them out?
Click to expand...
I’ve never met anyone who really knew the answer, but in fairness to Luther he wasn’t alone. Calvinists and Anabaptists dropped the books too.
 
concerneduser
I have a question about the 7 missing books from the protestant bible. First of all, I have heard that these 7 books are not in the Hebrew bible. Why is this? I have heard that the reason why these 7 books are not even in the Hebrew bible is because the development of the cannon of the Christian bible started before the official Hebew bible was put together. Therefore resulting in the 7 books that WERE preached during the time of Jesus, to be later on dismissed by the Jews who put together the jewish bible. Is this true? Please respond with what you know as the origin of these 7 books. When they were written, and how are they in our bible, but not in the jewish bible. And other then the fact Luther didn’t agree with these books…what was his bases on taking them out? ALSO…are there any references to these scriptures, or stories within, that are in the rest of the bible? ( therefore at least you would have an acknowledgment of these scriptures/events by other scriptures which are not disputed)
Click to expand...
Fr John A Hardon in *The Catholic Catechism *points out that the a rabbinical school at Jamnia circa A.D. 100 redefined the canon of the Old testament for the Jews, leaving out the seven books from their Palestinian canon because not conforming to the Pentateuch, or written after the time of Esdra (circa 400 B.C.)or not in Hebrew in Palestine, and “made a fence around it.”

Luther rejected them because they did not conform to his selfist theological theories of justification by faith alone, his rejection of purgatory etc.

Since Christ gave us His Church to teach infallibly on faith and morals and She has infallibly declared which books are the inspired Word of God as the Sacred Scriptures, no one has any authority to dispute or reject Her definition.
 
scottm said:
They were in the Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus and during the era of the Book of Acts. After the fall of Jerusalem and the scattering of Jews out of the Holy Land, when Judaism was reorganized, those books were removed because they were not originally
written in Hebrew. They were originally penned in Greek. Undoubtably there is more to the story, but the key point is that religious Jews dropped them from their own “Bible” after they were being circulated within Christian churches as part of the Christian scriptures, and they got into the set of Christian scriptures because they had been in the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles.

I’ve never met anyone who really knew the answer, but in fairness to Luther he wasn’t alone. Calvinists and Anabaptists dropped the books too.
Click to expand...
Sigh…and once again. Never, ever, ever. Did Luther at anytime in his life or in any Bible he had a hand in publishing or translating did he remove any books. The seven people mention are there placed in a section between the old and new testaments.

1534 Luther bible
collections.lstc.edu/gruber/luthe…
1545 Luther bible
lutherbibel.net/biblia2
 
What’s the name of the Lutheran leader who did get the books dropped?
And the Calvinist, too, if you know.

The next question is going to be, “Why were they dropped?”
 
The Lutherans accepted what the Jews did, dropping those books. The Jews dropped those books for two main reasons. Number one, those books pointed too much toward Jesus as being Messiah. Number two, the books dropped were thought to contain prophesies that were fulfilled. But, never did Jews think those books were uninspired.
The early Christians accepted the old testament the way Catholics do today. No dropped books. Jesus read the old testament the way Catholics did,no dropped books.
 
A couple quick thoughts
  1. As had been pointed out already, the Bible you will find in a Jewish synagogue is identical to the one in Protestant churches.
  2. St. Jerome, I have read, who translated the Vulgate, felt that these seven books should not be included in the canon.
  3. Many mainline congregations (and hymnals) use selections from these seven books. They certainly are not condemned, just not part of the canon. Luther, Calvin and others decided to go with the Hebrew Bible as recognized by the Jews.
  4. This is really a minor matter. Far more important is how different denominations (or folks within denominations) differ in their interpretations of the Bible. Evangelicals tend to be sola scriptura. Catholicism emphasizes the interpretation as endorsed by the magisterium. Mainline (usually liberal or moderate) Protestants are inclined to believe that there is great inspiration in scripture but that it is not without contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and a host of other problems. How can a Christian, for example, believe that God ordered Joshua to slaughter every inhabitant of Jericho, Ai and other cities? How does that fit in with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount?
5. A strong argument can be made for including or omitting the seven books.
 
Roy5
This is really a minor matter…. A strong argument can be made for including or omitting the seven books.
Click to expand...
I guess that’s why there are some 40, 000 sects all feeling something different about Christ.

Not only is at not minor, but since Christ gave us His Church to teach infallibly on faith and morals and She has infallibly declared which books are the inspired Word of God as the Sacred Scriptures, no one has any authority to dispute or reject Her definition. Christ wrote nothing but gave us His Church to show us Way, the Truth and the Life.
The root of the error is the assumption that Christ cared so little about us that He failed to give His authority to His Church.

One major error is in evading the necessity of praying for the departed, emphasised when the true Bible is available – The Book of Machabees teaches that “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.” (2 Mac 12:46).
 
I heard a priest lecturer say recently that excerpts from these 7 books were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Hebrew, indicating that they probably were originally written in Hebrew, and later translated into Greek. Also, are they not in the Septuagint, which was produced by Jewish scholars several hundred years before the birth of Christ?
 
In no certain order:
  1. Jamnia did remove books or discuss a formal canon. Google the Council that wasn’t by Steven Ray. I believe it is on this very site or perhaps Jimmy Akin. I cannot remember which one.
  2. There is no proof the 7 books were considered in the LXX or the scriptures because no copies or lists exist from this time frame.
  3. Luther did not take them out. He moved them. They were still in there.
  4. This list from scriptureCatholic is seriously flawed. It has been discusssed on this forum. Its defenders will quickly abandon it in my opinion when they start looking into it.
  5. Only three of the Deuterocanonical books were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. One was written in Hebrew and two in Greek
 
Yes, JimG, the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd Centuries B.C. in Alexandria.
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.

“The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.”
 
If someone said to you, “I removed such and such a book from the Bible because of X, Y, and Z,” who really cares??? The issue isn’t why John Doe decided he didn’t like Tobit, the issue is simply whether or not he or she or it had the authority to remove the books period. The issue is really at heart who/what is the legitimate authority in Christendom. All this talk about who removed what books and why – it’s secondary. Who’s in charge? And on what basis can they make their claim credible? Man, I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve had the deuterocanonical discussion…there is a point where apologetics just gets tiring because it goes around in circles looking for facts in a world that is really about belief. Don’t play scientist. This is religion.
 
I did not write this, but it sums up everything I believe.

The Catholic Bible has 7 more books than the Protestant Bible.

The apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word “apocrypha” (απόκρυφα) means “Hidden.” These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.

THE REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE:
  • Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. (I read the website link that Abu provided which talks about this, and the irony is that the article explaining the error of a “myth”, is actually full of error. All of the quotes that the author used were not direct. They were simply passages with similar meanings to the ones that Jesus and the apostles used. You cannot say that just because the passage has a similar meaning, that it is directly quoted. Also, it says that Jesus and the apostles observed Hanukkah, which is only found in the apocrypha, which means the apocrypha has to be in the Bible. What? It was a VERY common Jewish tradition. Observing it has no correlation between whether it should be in the Bible or not.
  • Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference.
  • Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament.
That is why the protestants didn’t include it. Good writings, but not inspired by God for Scripture. Hope that helps. Some Catholics show quotes of the apostles that are similar to verses from the Apocrypha, but there are no direct, word-for-word quotes from the Apocrypha anywhere in the Bible.

Also, a Catholic mentioned on Yahoo Answers (I’ve been browsing around to find out the reason for the removal of the Apocrypha) that Luther dropped the books because of his selfish thinking that “You may only get to heaven through the Means of Grace.” I do not know why Catholics don’t believe this, as it is VERY CLEARLY stated in Ephesians 2: 8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.” Catholics teach that good works will get you in to heaven. Sorry, but unless you think Paul is a liar, you’re wrong :o
Additional reference, Romans 3:28 “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”
It is my personal belief that the Catholic leaders made the teaching of Salvation through goodworks so that people would try to do more good works, and make society a bit better 😃 (and the Catholic church also has been known to start certain traditions (lies) for its own benefits, such as the selling of indulgences purely for money, even though they have no Biblical origin, and are a lie. Also, if purgatory is real, why does no Biblical figure talk about it? Jesus and the Apostles never say purgatory exists, nor do they ever mention it (and I think they would’ve if it did exist, because purgatory is not a minor belief).

Now you may say, “But the Apocrypha teaches that we are saved through good works and faith.” Well, that may be, but the Apocrypha is not accepted by all, while the New Testament is, and the New Testament says that the Apocrypha (atleast the part about good works) is wrong.
 
I cannot edit my post further for some reason, but I want to add the part about what the pro Catholic article, “5 Myths about 7 books” says about Jerome. (Btw, you call Jerome a “saint”, but Catholics abuse this term and do not accept another one of Paul’s writings, that all Christians are saints. Read the New Testament, and there are SEVERAL passages talking about how all Christians are saints (you can look those up on your own). And here’s an article proving why praying to the dead is ACTUALLY A SIN gotquestions.org/praying-to-the-dead.html. I know these things are random, but I just wanted to disprove those extra Catholic teachings before moving to the disproving of the “5 Myths about 7 books” article.) Even the article says, when Jerome translated the RC Bible, he did indeed think the apocrypha should not be included. But later, he changed his way of thinking. Why? The RCC was known to be VERY corrupt in medieval times, and it is very likely that the RCC did not want the very translator of their Bible to be known to disagree with them. So they likely blackmailed, tortured, or threatened him to make a public statement about agreeing with the Apocrypha. (The RCC killed anyone who disagreed with them, which delayed the Reformation, because many people (including Luther!!) did not want to break off of the Catholic church, simply correct the errors. Luther was just the first one who lived long enough to make his ideas widespread. Luther actually would’ve been murdered by the RCC if Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, hadn’t defended him.)

That is the only non-proven anti-Catholic statement I have made, but I think it was worth showing.
 
Again, I have found something 20 minutes after my post :o I said find the passages disproving the Catholic beliefs about Sainthood yourself, but here is an article that you cannot say is wrong, since it uses DIRECT (all the Catholic teachings never have direct Bible passages, just assumptions off of passages) passages that say all Christans are saints, not special people.
angelfire.com/mt/tabor/bibledoctrine.8.html
 
Vahva98 said:
I did not write this, but it sums up everything I believe.

The Catholic Bible has 7 more books than the Protestant Bible.
Click to expand...
No, on the contrary, the Protestant Bible has 7 LESS books than the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Church put together the Bible, there were no Protestants in the first 1520 years of Christianity. How come do they claim to know better if no Protestant was present when the Canon of the Bible was decided in the year 382 AD?
The apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word “apocrypha” (ap???fa) means “Hidden.” These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Click to expand...
The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.
Click to expand...
False, and their name is DEUTEROCANONICALS. The Canon was established 1164 years earlier than you have been told:

“Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, “The Decree of Damasus”, in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.”

Read it here.
THE REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE:
  • Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. (I read the website link that Abu provided which talks about this, and the irony is that the article explaining the error of a “myth”, is actually full of error. All of the quotes that the author used were not direct. They were simply passages with similar meanings to the ones that Jesus and the apostles used. You cannot say that just because the passage has a similar meaning, that it is directly quoted. Also, it says that Jesus and the apostles observed Hanukkah, which is only found in the apocrypha, which means the apocrypha has to be in the Bible. What? It was a VERY common Jewish tradition. Observing it has no correlation between whether it should be in the Bible or not.
Click to expand...
False. It is convenient for you to define “quote” to fit your belief, and your definition is very narrow. Did Jesus quote Noah? No, He just mentioned his name. Did Jesus quote Genesis in the following passages: Matthew 24:37-38, Luke 17:26-27? These are the only times in the Gospels that Jesus talks about Noah. According to your definition of “quote”, Jesus DID NOT DIRECTLY QUOTED (word for word) from Genesis when talking about Noah.

Paul quotes Jesus in Acts 20:35, “In every way I have shown you that by so working hard one must help the weak, remembering the words that the Lord Jesus himself said, ‘Happiness lies more in giving than in receiving.’”

Since Paul was not one of the Twelve, which means he never heard Jesus when He was preaching, where did Paul get this “quote” from?
  • Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference.
Click to expand...
Check this, it has more than 20 quotes from the Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament.
  • Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
He was free to have his opinion, just like you. The difference is that when Pope St. Damasus I said in his Decree that the Canon was 73 books, what did St. Jerome do? He accepted the Pope’s authority, which you don’t, HUGE difference. Why do you admire St. Jerome for believing the Deuterocanonicals were not inspired, and do not admire him for accepting his error and for his obedience, the same obedience Abraham had?
 
That is why the protestants didn’t include it. Good writings, but not inspired by God for Scripture. Hope that helps. Some Catholics show quotes of the apostles that are similar to verses from the Apocrypha, but there are no direct, word-for-word quotes from the Apocrypha anywhere in the Bible.
Click to expand...
You said it, word for word… “Happiness lies more in giving than in receiving.” Show us where is this quote in the Gospels… word for word.
Also, a Catholic mentioned on Yahoo Answers (I’ve been browsing around to find out the reason for the removal of the Apocrypha) that Luther dropped the books because of his selfish thinking that “You may only get to heaven through the Means of Grace.” I do not know why Catholics don’t believe this, as it is VERY CLEARLY stated in Ephesians 2: 8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.” Catholics teach that good works will get you in to heaven. Sorry, but unless you think Paul is a liar, you’re wrong :o
Additional reference, Romans 3:28 “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”
It is my personal belief that the Catholic leaders made the teaching of Salvation through goodworks so that people would try to do more good works, and make society a bit better 😃 (and the Catholic church also has been known to start certain traditions (lies) for its own benefits, such as the selling of indulgences purely for money, even though they have no Biblical origin, and are a lie. Also, if purgatory is real, why does no Biblical figure talk about it? Jesus and the Apostles never say purgatory exists, nor do they ever mention it (and I think they would’ve if it did exist, because purgatory is not a minor belief).
Click to expand...
Now you may say, “But the Apocrypha teaches that we are saved through good works and faith.” Well, that may be, but the Apocrypha is not accepted by all, while the New Testament is, and the New Testament says that the Apocrypha (atleast the part about good works) is wrong.
Click to expand...
The Deuterocanonicals are accepted by all except the Protestants. And since you mention several issues here besides the Deuterocanonicals,

Can you name the non Catholics that, between 382AD and 1520:
rejected the Deuterocanonicals?
objected indulgences?
denounced the teaching of purgatory?
I hope you can provide us with their writings.

And finally, can you name the non Catholics that received the Gospels directly from the Apostles? Their (name removed by moderator)ut will be appreciated.
 
St Jerorone also says the only ones who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary were heritics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top