The Missing Books

  • Thread starter Thread starter Louemma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Louemma

Guest
What books were taken out of the Bible?
Who was responsible for this?
And does anyone have a list of the Missing Books?
Thank You:)
 
Louemma said:
What books were taken out of the Bible?
Who was responsible for this?
And does anyone have a list of the Missing Books?
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the Deuterocanonical books which non-Catholics call “the Apocrypha”? If so, Luther removed these books because they contained passages that support theological ideas that he rejected. Later, Protestants would begin to claim that Catholics “added” these same books, but this view is not supported by historical evidence. Perhaps these articles will help:

Articles on the Deuterocanonicals

"5 Myths about 7 Books"
Answers to five common arguments Protestants give for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament
By Mark Shea
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
 
Randy_Carson said:
Are you referring to the Deuterocanonical books which non-Catholics call “the Apocrypha”?

Articles on the Deuterocanonicals
**“5 Myths about 7 Books”
**Answers to five common arguments Protestants give for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament
By Mark Shea
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS****
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
Click to expand...
Thank You so much.Can I ask if the book of Enoch is considered by the catholics a genuine book that should not have been taken out?
 
Louemma said:
What books were taken out of the Bible?
Who was responsible for this?
And does anyone have a list of the Missing Books?
Thank You:)
Click to expand...
No books are missing from the Catholic bible; however, during the Reformation Protestants removed 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others: Daniel and Esther.

This article should be helpful:

catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
 
Louemma said:
What about the book of Enoch?
Click to expand...
The Book of Enoch is not in the Bible. It is quoted in the Bible, but didn’t make the cut. It has some truths and some falsehoods in it. 🙂

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided on the canon of the Bible (which books belonged in the Bible) in the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.). 🙂
 
Thank You all.I suppose I need to get a Catholic Bible so that I can check out the missing books.🙂
 
Very few early Christians accepted the Book of Enoch, today only Ethiopians include it in the bible. The only reason Tertullian included the book of Enoch was because Jude 1 quoted from it, or seems to, it is possible Enoch took the prophecy from some other book or oral tradition and incorporated it. The Book of Enoch was not even part of the Septuagint. Luther had a low view of some of the books at the back of the New Testament too.
 
Louemma said:
Thank You all.I suppose I need to get a Catholic Bible so that I can check out the missing books.🙂
Click to expand...
You can also see it online in many places. Here it is on the U.S. Bishops’ website:

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

Start with Tobit. 🙂 It’s short and it’s an easy read as it is a narrative. Wisdom and Sirach have some great stuff in them, too. Wisdom 3:1-9 is especially beautiful. It is one of the standard readings for funeral liturgies. 1 & 2 Maccabees fill in the narrative gap between the time around the Babylonian Exile and the New Testament.

Of course, none of the above are the reasons that these books are included in Scripture. But it’s good to know. 🙂
 
**:bible1: **
The Catholic Bible
(material from the EWTN.com website)
**. . . :coffeeread: . . . **

:bible1: contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the “Apocrypha” as pious reading.​


. . . all for Jesus+
. . . blessed St. Jerome please pray for us+
. . . thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​
 
Louemma said:
What books were taken out of the Bible?
Who was responsible for this?
And does anyone have a list of the Missing Books?
Thank You:)
Click to expand...
Code: 
The charge that Luther "removed" 7 books from the Bible is not accurate.  Luther's translation, then and now, includes all 73 books traditionally found in the western Bible.  He translated all of the D-C books and included them.
While Luther, like many scholars prior to him and during his time, questioned the canonicity of the D-C's (so did his contemporary Cr. Cajetan), he held them in high regard.  This is evidenced by the fact that he took the time to translate them.  The debate about their canonicity was allowed by the CC until the Council of Trent, and had been ongoing since Jerome, so by questioning their canonicity, Luther was acting well within the priviledges granted all Catholics.  The Council of Trent happened after Luther's death, so he cannot be held to that standard.  What Luther did do was place them in a separate section between the OT and NT in his translation.
The removal of these 7 books from Bibles used by many non-catholic western Christians did not take place until well after Luther’s death. In fact, even the original 1611 King James Version had them.
The fact that they are not maintained is something I think Luther would disapprove of, as he said they were valuable for reading and study.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The charge that Luther “removed” 7 books from the Bible is not accurate. Luther’s translation, then and now, includes all 73 books traditionally found in the western Bible. He translated all of the D-C books and included them.
While Luther, like many scholars prior to him and during his time, questioned the canonicity of the D-C’s (so did his contemporary Cr. Cajetan), he held them in high regard. This is evidenced by the fact that he took the time to translate them. The debate about their canonicity was allowed by the CC until the Council of Trent, and had been ongoing since Jerome, so by questioning their canonicity, Luther was acting well within the priviledges granted all Catholics. The Council of Trent happened after Luther’s death, so he cannot be held to that standard. What Luther did do was place them in a separate section between the OT and NT in his translation.
The removal of these 7 books from Bibles used by many non-catholic western Christians did not take place until well after Luther’s death. In fact, even the original 1611 King James Version had them.
The fact that they are not maintained is something I think Luther would disapprove of, as he said they were valuable for reading and study.

Jon
Click to expand...
Hi Jon,
I think you should watch the videos on the site posted in post 15. I think you will find them eye opening as to where we got the bible from.
Jeanne
 
JeanneH said:
Hi Jon,
I think you should watch the videos on the site posted in post 15. I think you will find them eye opening as to where we got the bible from.
Jeanne
Click to expand...
Hi Jeanne,
I will, but I have no doubt as to the vital role the undivided Catholic Church played in organizing and bringing us the scripture, and I thank God for it. Luther, too, recognozed this fact, and said so.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The charge that Luther “removed” 7 books from the Bible is not accurate. Luther’s translation, then and now, includes all 73 books traditionally found in the western Bible. He translated all of the D-C books and included them.
While Luther, like many scholars prior to him and during his time, questioned the canonicity of the D-C’s (so did his contemporary Cr. Cajetan), he held them in high regard. This is evidenced by the fact that he took the time to translate them. The debate about their canonicity was allowed by the CC until the Council of Trent, and had been ongoing since Jerome, so by questioning their canonicity, Luther was acting well within the priviledges granted all Catholics. The Council of Trent happened after Luther’s death, so he cannot be held to that standard. What Luther did do was place them in a separate section between the OT and NT in his translation.
The removal of these 7 books from Bibles used by many non-catholic western Christians did not take place until well after Luther’s death. In fact, even the original 1611 King James Version had them.
The fact that they are not maintained is something I think Luther would disapprove of, as he said they were valuable for reading and study.

Jon
Click to expand...
Thanks Jon for this information, it is enlightening. However, although the DCs had folks questioning them, they were always a part of the Canon. What the Council of Trent did was infallibly define the canon in the face of the errors of the Reformers (not Luther) who rejected the seven Old Testament books.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top