The original Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter pault
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pault

Guest
To Whom It May Concern:

Some Protestants believe the seven books of the Old Testament that were deleted during the Reformation were never part of the original Bible. What are the facts behind this?

Thank you.
 
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.

The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave [Joshua], one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings] ; Paralipomenon, two books [Chronicles]; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
 
40.png
pault:
To Whom It May Concern:

Some Protestants believe the seven books of the Old Testament that were deleted during the Reformation were never part of the original Bible. What are the facts behind this?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
This article is good:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/deuterocanonicals.html

The original link sometimes doesn’t work, so I’m listing this cached copy.

Heb 11:35 - ‘Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life’ refers only to 2Macc 7 (a Deuterocanonical book)
 
First of all, I am not pretending to be an authority on this subject, but this is what I was taught, growing up in the Methodist tradition:
There were/are two differing sets of what was considered canonical by the Jews. The Greek canon was bigger than the Hebrew canon. The Catholic & I believe Orthodox churches use the Greek canon. Most Protestant churches use the Hebrew canon. This has fewer books than the Greek one.
Nobody ever said anything about why, or what was the reason. And most of the Methodists that I know (including me) read the apocrypha/deuterocanon, unless a particular Bible doesn’t have these books in it. And I have never seen anything in them that disagreed with Methodist doctrine. (Some of the wisdom books, in fact, are IMHO really excellent!! (Yeah, I 😉 know…you didn’t need me to tell you that!)
 
Zooey has it right. The Catholic Church has used the Septuigent for its old testament. The Septuigent was compiled well before (I forget exactly but between 1 and 3 centuries) Christ and was in use throughout Hellenized areas. Probably, cities like Jerusalem with strong Greek influence used the Septuigent. Paul certainly would have. Whether or not Christ did…who knows. But one thing is certain, the Hebrew Bible was not compiled until well after the death of Christ, at a time after the expulsion of Christians from synagogs.

There was some debate in the early Church about which OT to use. Jerome argued for the Hebrew while others (I forget who) argued for the Septuigent. Of course, we know the outcome.

After the reformation, Protestants opted for the Hebrew version of the OT. Thus, they have less books than we do.
 
While this is a topic, let me ride the coat tails & follow up the original question with these two:
  1. I thought that the Coucil of Carthage in 397 defined the Books of the Bible…what was that council for if all the books were already in place?
  2. Can somebody tell me why the books in my DR are named as the above, but, the Protestant Bibles & now my NAB have the common names (example, instead of Kings 1-4, we now have 1 & 2 Kings & 1 & 2 Chronicals?)
Thank you. 🙂
 
Also, the Jewish books of the OT have changed since the Catholic church had decided which books to use. Leading to some discrepancies there.
 
40.png
trailblazer:
There was some debate in the early Church about which OT to use. Jerome argued for the Hebrew while others (I forget who) argued for the Septuigent… Of course, we know the outcome.
Click to expand...
trailblazer - good post! However, though your argument for Jerome’s disapproval of the “Catholic” OT is a popular one, it might not be accurate.

Here are some quotes to indicate that St. Jerome accepted the “Catholic” Old Testament:

From St. Jerome himself, “On the Four Gospels”, AD 383, directed to Pope Damasus (he begins by explaining the nature of his letter, which was toward NT writings, not OT):

“…I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy elders, and(1) has reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what (2)Aquila and (3)Symmachus think, or why (4)Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be the true translation which had apostolic approval.”

Also, in Jerome’s “Apology Against Rufinus - Book II” paragraph 33:
“But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought, but what they commonly say against us.”

Jerome seems in this last quote to feel like he has been unjustly misunderstood by others, as possibly favoring the Jewish Hebrew canon over that recognized by the Christians, when in fact Jerome accepted the “Catholic” OT over the shortened version.

I know it’s not a big deal to anybody, but Jerome’s supposed disapproval of the Catholic OT appears to be more fabrication than fact… He may have flip-flopped on this issue later, but I can’t find evidence. Jerome wasn’t known to be a “flip-flop” kind of guy…

But, hey, GOD BLESS US ALL!
 
the Coucil of Carthage in 397 defined the bible by adding the new testament, and then declared it without error, and could not be changed… the pharasees(i think) around the year 100AD or something, were having soo much trouble with the christians, they redefined the old testament, and took the aprocrypha out, for their own selfish reasons, no doubt… i believe it was Alexander who fought for the catholic version of the OT??..
heres an excellent site of apocrypha references for stubborn protestants as well : scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
80 good examples should be a good start, eh? and some light reading for fun too…
i was at a protestant youth service with my gf on wednesday, the pastor there was talking about fear, deception and other works of satan… what kept running through my head was… hes giving all the reasons why people become protestant… :rotfl:
 
the way i understand it, the protestants reverted to thw hebrew canon is because of teachings in the greek canon. what comes to mind at the moment is prayer for the dead. that is pretty much anathema for protestants. i dont remember the rest, it has been a while since i read up on this.

to pray for the dead, you have to believe in purgatory.

we are hard headed, rebellious people. still.
 
Hi Pault,

The first Christians, folloiwing the apostles, used the Greek Septuagint Bible, which contained the books Protestants later took out.

The onus is on Protestants to prove that the first Christains, including the apostles, were wrong.

Verbum
 
I know what you’re saying, but, we need to be careful with the words we use. The “Apocrypha” is a word used by the Catholic Church to define NON-Scriptural writings, such as the book of Enoch, the book of Moses etc. . It is NOT the term to describe the deuterocanon, which includes the “missing” writings of the protestors Scripture. Protestants use the word to describe the deuterocanon incorrectly or in a deliberate attempt to deceive one into thinking the writings were never accepted, and then they point to Catholic doctrine which speaks against using the “Apocrypha”. We need to use the right term, it’s the deuterocanon, not the Apocrypha.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top