Why do we have 7 more books

[JillianRose]

Dearest Friends,

Please try to help me if you can. Well, I would like to know why we have 7 extra books in Our Catholic Bible compared to Protestants? Was it always like that?

 

[Rainaldo]

Dearest Friends,

Please try to help me if you can. Well, I would like to know why we have 7 extra books in Our Catholic Bible compared to Protestants? Was it always like that?

No, no no. The Protestants have seven less books. The Christian Church always and everywhere included them in their canons up until the European Protestants decided that the Jewish canon - which also excludes the New Testament - would be their Old Testament.

The Protestants refused to include those seven books for several reasons, two of which are: 1) they are not accepted by the Jews and 2) they teach doctrines that go against Protestantism.

 

[Tietjen]

Dearest Friends,

Please try to help me if you can. Well, I would like to know why we have 7 extra books in Our Catholic Bible compared to Protestants? Was it always like that?

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 250 BC and 70 AD included the deuterocanonical books (Google Dead Sea Scrolls).

The city of Alexandria in Egypt possessed the greatest library of the ancient world and during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars (6 from each of the 12 tribes). The Septuagint is Latin for 70 (this is why the Septuagint is often referred to as LXX). Greek was the common language at the time and Hebrew was dying out and being replaced by Aramaic. This is further evident by the fact that we know that the Jews at the time of Christ were quiet familiar with the Aramaic language as well as the Greek. The Hebrew canon (where Protestants get their Bible) was established by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia Palestine in about the year 100 AD. The Jews at Jamnia rejected the seven books from the Hebrew canon (found in the LXX) chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the LXX supposedly translated into Greek. These Rabbis used 4 criteria to determining which books would be included in their new canon:

1. It had to be written in Hebrew
2. It had to conform with the Torah
3. It had to be older than the time of Ezra (400 BC)
4. It had to have been written in Palestine

During the time that these Rabbis were trying to compile their new canon, the relatively new cult of Christianity was growing among the Jews and Gentiles alike. The majority of these upstarts continued to use the Greek translation (the LXX) and this caused great concern amongst the Rabbis who viewed this new religion as a threat to Judaism. A separation needed to take place between the ancient Jewish religion and Christianity, and this new canon was a good place to take a stand.

Here are some others facts concerning the LXX that Protestants never seem to like to bring up:

1. Martin Luther actually included the 7 books in his first German translation.
2. The first King James Version (1611) included them as well.
3. The first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (printed a century BEFORE the council of Trent) included them.
4. Luther in his writings on the New Testament, noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible (never mind the fact that eight other Old Testament books such as the Song of Songs were also not quoted in the New Testament).
5. These seven books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

 

[patrick457]

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 250 BC and 70 AD included the deuterocanonical books (Google Dead Sea Scrolls).

Not all of them.

To be more specific, what was found were:

• Five fragments of Tobit (four in Aramaic, one in Hebrew) from Cave 4. The oldest (4QTobit[sup]d[/sup]ar) dates from 100 BC, the latest copy (4QTobit[sup]e[/sup], in Hebrew) from around 30 BC-AD 20. Because of damage and deterioration, none of these scrolls were completely preserved, but all fourteen chapters are represented. The best-preserved of the five is 4QpapTobit[sup]a[/sup]ar, which contains portions of chapters 1-7 and 12-14. In contrast, very little text is preserved in 4QTobit[sup]c[/sup]ar (14:2-6:10?) and 4QTobit[sup]d[/sup]ar (7:11; 14:10) (For the record, it is thought more likely that Tobit was originally written in Aramaic!)
• Only three copies containing text from Ben Sira (Sirach) were found among the scrolls, in contrast to the several 11th-12th substantial copies found in the Cairo Genizah during the 19th century, which provide two-thirds of the whole book. Two of these, preserving portions of just three chapters, were discovered at Qumran, with the third manuscript, representing six chapters, was found at Masada. These texts are in substantial agreement with the ones discovered in Cairo, although there are numerous minor textual variants. The fragment found in Cave 2 of Qumran (2QSir), dating at least to the mid-1st century BC, apparently contained the Hebrew text of some or all of Sirach as found in Greek manuscripts. The second text, found in Cave 11, however, which originally contained the entire second canticle after the epilogue (Sirach 51:13-30) is not from a manuscript of Sirach at all, but part of the Great Psalms Scroll (11QPs[sup]a[/sup]) and was copied later than 2QSir. The largest scroll, containing Sirach 39:27-44:17 (ca. 40 BC-AD 20?), was discovered at Masada, the famous Jewish fortress destroyed in AD 73-74.
• The Epistle of Jeremiah, often bound up with the book of Baruch, is represented by a single manuscript in Greek (pap7QEpJer gr), which probably contained only the Letter and not the first five chapters of Baruch, none of which has been found in Qumran or other Judean sites. Even then, this fragment is in a bad state: only two words (therefore and them!) and parts of seven others have survived.

That’s about it. We do not have copies of Baruch, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Wisdom of Solomon. The book of Esther is also not among the DSS, and the eight manuscripts of Daniel found in Qumran - two in Cave 1, five in Cave 4, and one in Cave 6, all written within a space of 125 BC (the earliest copy 4QDan[sup]c[/sup]) up to AD 50 (the latest copy 4QDan[sup]b[/sup]) - are all incomplete, and seven of the eight manuscripts seem to contain the shorter Hebrew form instead of the longer Septuagint version. (In 1QDan[sup]b[/sup] and 4QDan[sup]d[/sup] for example, Daniel 3:23 is not followed by the Prayer of Azariah, but continues on to 3:24). The eighth manuscript, 4QDan[sup]e[/sup], meanwhile is possible to have been an abbreviated text that included only the prayer of Daniel (9:4b-19), since it preserves text only from chapter 9.

BTW, it is indeed quite likely that a few of the Deutero’s were not written in either Hebrew and Aramaic at all. We have for example 2 Maccabees, which claims to be an abdrigement of a five-volume work by a ‘Jason of Cyrene’. Wisdom of Solomon is believed to have been originally penned in Greek but patterned after Hebrew verse.

By contrast, we have a Hebrew text of Psalm 151, found in the Septuagint - and accepted by the Eastern Orthodox as canonical - preserved in column 28 of the Great Psalms Scroll (11QPs[sup]a[/sup]) found in Cave 11! The difference between the Hebrew and the Greek here is, while the Septuagint presents it as a single psalm, the 11QPs[sup]a[/sup] has two distinct psalms (151A and 151B) each with its own superscription and with the second psalm beginning on a new line. The superscriptions are noticeable more Davidic than the Septuagint’s, which declare the psalm to be “outside the number,” perhaps reflecting the concerns of later editors about the place of the psalm at a time when the Proto-Masoretic psalter of 150 compositions was becoming or had become normative for Judaism. Heck, aside from Psalm 151, we even have the Hebrew texts of Psalms 154 and 155 (until then extant only in Syriac)!

 

[patrick457]

The city of Alexandria in Egypt possessed the greatest library of the ancient world and during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars (6 from each of the 12 tribes). The Septuagint is Latin for 70 (this is why the Septuagint is often referred to as LXX).

According to the Letter of Aristeas. It is more likely however that historically the Torah was indeed translated into Greek during the 3rd century BC, with new books being added to the informal collection (there was no idea of a ‘closed’ canon of Scripture in those days) as time went on.

The Hebrew canon (where Protestants get there Bible) was established by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia Palestine in about the year 100 AD.

So the idea goes. However:

The problem I think lies with the terminology ‘Council of Jamnia’ and the purported evidence.

Before the fall of Jerusalem, Rabbi Johanan ben-Zakkai established an academy at Yavneh which proceeded to function like a Sanhedrin between the period between the Jewish revolts of AD 70-132. He was then succeeded by Rabbi Gamaliel II. Somewhere between AD 80 and AD 117 Gamaliel was deposed for a time; Eleazar ben-Azariah was installed as head of the Yavneh academy. According to the Mishnah, at the day of Eleazar’s installation, the sages ruled that both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes “make the hands unclean” (i.e. holy). The same passage goes on to state that “all the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean”, and so it is clear that the point at issue was whether the two books ranked among the Scriptures. This passage is then followed by a series of enactments introduced by the phrase “on that day” (Mishnah Yadaim 3.5-4.4). Later tradition (Talmud, tractate Berakhoth 28a), taking this formula at face value, claimed that every ruling prefixed by the phrase were indeed made on the same occasion.

This is where Heinrich Graetz and his ilk seem to get the idea of a ‘Council of Jamnia’. But even if we grant that something similar to it did exist, it should not be interpreted in the same way as Christian use of the term ‘council’, Nicaea- or even Vatican II-style. Admittedly, the term ‘council’ does have the disadvantage of making people assume official action taken at specific meetings held at specific dates.

On the contrary, it would seem that the deliberations at Yavneh were closer to the character of a school, academy, or court. All that the story about the Songs of Songs and Ecclesiastes tell us was that there was some debate about the exact status of these books. In fact, it would seem that the dispute were not terminated by the decisions at Yavneh: even as late as the late 2nd century, Rabbi Meir (circa 135-170), famous as one of the greatest of the Tannaim of the fourth generation, was disputing the idea that Ecclesiastes defiled the hands! There is no evidence that the status of other Writings was debated, or that a final decision was reached in Yavneh.

Thus, the idea of a Council of Jamnia that is analogous to Christian Church councils has no foundation. The Jamnia hypothesis however, admits of a looser definition. Hence, many of those who continue to accept the hypothesis now define the term as a loose one (and an unsatisfactory one at that), more of a convenient catch-all symbol designating the decisions that the schools that gathered at Yavneh had reached, which could represent the crystallization of long processes that occurred in early Judaism. In any case, it is even doubtful whether the actions of the academy at Yavneh were official decisions; there was probably no body in Judaism that functioned in an ‘official’ capacity post-AD 70.

 

[itullian]

hi Jillian,

this is a pretty good little video answering your question, albeit with a definite catholic perspective.
but what the heck, we’re catholic right?
it’s a good simple starter though.
hope it’s helpful.

youtube.com/watch?v=PjvXbotd9Lw

 

[Tietjen]

I will concede that there may be problems with the story of Jamnia and that not all the deuterocanonical books appear in the DSS. That doesn’t, in my opinion, take away from the fact that the LXX canon was used by the Church long before the Reformers.

The Church choose to use the Greek (Septuagint) because this was the most popular version at the time of Christ and was most likely the same version which Christ and His disciples used. This is further substantiated by the fact that the majority of O.T. quotations found in the N.T. are from the Septuagint. To be precise, there were 340 places in the NT where quotes from the Septuagint are found as opposed to just 33 places where quotes from the Hebrew cannon are found. The Septuagint was completed between 250-125 BC where as the Hebrew canon wasn’t established until after the death of Christ (whether at Jamnia or not).

In 393 AD the Church officially decided which books to include in the canon of the Bible. This was done at the council of Hippo. Then in 397 AD at the council of Carthage, the Church again affirmed its decision. Trent only “settled the matter” officially because the Reformers were attempting to question the authenticity of Canon. That doesn’t mean that prior to Trent, there was no accepted Canon.

Now, fast-forward to 1529 AD and we find Martin Luther proposing to re-invent the Bible using the Hebrew canon. Luther preferred the Hebrew canon because it contained 7 fewer books (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 & 2 Maccabees were not in the Hebrew canon). These books were problematic for Luther on issues such as purgatory (especially 1 & 2 Maccabees). Luther attempted to also remove several other books of the Catholic Bible (James, Esther, and Revelation) but his supporters did not look favorably on these other books being removed so Luther relented.

 

[SirNapAlot]

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 250 BC and 70 AD included the deuterocanonical books

Are there any mentions of Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[Tietjen]

Are there any mentions of Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Not by name. The New Testament was after the DSS. However, you can go back and look at verses relating to the phrophecy of the Messiah.

 

[patrick457]

I will concede that there may be problems with the story of Jamnia and that not all the deuterocanonical books appear in the DSS. That doesn’t, in my opinion, take away from the fact that the LXX canon was used by the Church long before the Reformers.

…]

In 393 AD the Church officially decided which books to include in the canon of the Bible. This was done at the council of Hippo. Then in 397 AD at the council of Carthage, the Church again affirmed it’s decision.

I’m going only to say this: most, if not all the issues in apologetics really boils down to whether one accepts the authority of the Church or not.

The Church choose to use the Greek (Septuagint) because this was the most popular version at the time of Christ and was most likely the same version which Christ and His disciples used. This is further substantiated by the fact that the majority of O.T. quotations found in the N.T. are from the Septuagint. To be precise, there were 340 places in the NT where quotes from the Septuagint are found as opposed to just 33 places where quotes from the Hebrew cannon are found.

We don’t really know for sure about Jesus (IMHO He could equally likely have quoted from memory one of the Aramaic translations/paraphrases of Scripture or targumim), but yes, it was the preferred version for the earliest Christians, especially those in Greco-Roman areas - Christians were after all at first indistinguishable from Jews - as testified by the fact that most quotations in the NT are taken from this translation.

The Septuagint was completed between 250-125 BC where as the Hebrew canon wasn’t established until after the death of Christ (whether at Jamnia or not).

Personally I don’t think that speaking of a fixed, closed ‘canon’ of Scripture in the context of the Second Temple era without any definition is proper.

For Jews - and Christians - at that time, our modern Bibles (a complete collection of books bound under one cover) would have been something strange. In those days the norm was for different books, or different categories of books, to have their own scrolls: so a typical synagogue library would have had a scroll or scrolls of the Torah, some Prophets, perhaps a few writings such as the Psalms, or even collections of snippets from different scriptures organized around a particular theme (a testimonia). It probably would not have had included all the texts now in the protocanon (the undisputed OT books), and it might well have included some texts that were not part of that canon.

While some scholars think that the Palestinian ‘canon’ was not definitively fixed until much later in time (some propose a date as late as the 4th century AD), others argue that it was already more or less established by the 1st century BC. Still, that does not mean that the canon was closed: while Jews already had good guesses as to which books were authoritative, there was apparently nothing which prevented considering other books not included in this protocanon as being authoritative as well or expressing doubts about a few of the already-‘canonized’ books (such as Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, as we have seen earlier).

Now, fast-forward to 1529 AD and we find Martin Luther proposing to re-invent the Bible using the Hebrew canon. Luther preferred the Hebrew canon because it contained 7 fewer books (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 & 2 Maccabees were not in the Hebrew canon). These books were problematic for Luther on issues such as purgatory (especially 1 & 2 Maccabees). Luther attempted to also remove several other books of the Catholic Bible (James, Esther, and Revelation) but his supporters did not look favorably on these other books being removed so Luther relented.

I know this is an oft-repeated claim, but source?

 

[patrick457]

Are there any mentions of Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

A few folks would think so, but they are on the fringes. In other words: no, we don’t have any overt mentions of Jesus from the literature found in the Dead Sea region.

 

[Bernward]

Congratulations and thanks to each of the contributors to this fascinating thread,

It is a great pleasure to read such well-informed discussion. The factual underpinning supports responses to ill-informed anti-catholic bigotry, and the observation that the number of psalms exceeded 150 rather scuppers one or two traditionalist arguments against the addition of the Luminous Mysteries (San Francisco Chronicle, 1996 ?),

God bless you all

 

[Tietjen]

I’m going only to say this: most, if not all the issues in apologetics really boils down to whether one accepts the authority of the Church or not.

Agreed.

I know this is an oft-repeated claim, but source?

I apologize, in my original post I cited James, Esther, and Revelation. And while these 3 books were seen as having a “lower view” by Luther it was the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation that Luther actually wanted to exclude in addition to the “deuteros.”
When he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. These are Luther’s words concerning the matter.
American edition of Luther's Works:

Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, “You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: “Love covers a multitude of sins,” and again, “Humble yourselves under the hand of God;” also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.
In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. 5 He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture?
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth.

{{{CONTINUED BELOW}}}

 

[Tietjen]

American edition of Luther's Works:

Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly – indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important – and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Dearest Friends,

Please try to help me if you can. Well, I would like to know why we have 7 extra books in Our Catholic Bible compared to Protestants? Was it always like that?

I can’t recommend enough Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger by Gary Michuta. IMO, it’s still the best apologetic book I’ve come across since Karl Keating’s famous Catholicism & Fundamentalism.

 

[JillianRose]

Dear Men and WOmen:

Thank you so much. By the looks of it, it looks like you picked out my summer reading for me. Keep it up. It is so kind of you to take time out of your day to help little ole me.

Blessings,

Jill:thumbsup:

 

[JillianRose]

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 250 BC and 70 AD included the deuterocanonical books (Google Dead Sea Scrolls).

The city of Alexandria in Egypt possessed the greatest library of the ancient world and during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars (6 from each of the 12 tribes). The Septuagint is Latin for 70 (this is why the Septuagint is often referred to as LXX). Greek was the common language at the time and Hebrew was dying out and being replaced by Aramaic. This is further evident by the fact that we know that the Jews at the time of Christ were quiet familiar with the Aramaic language as well as the Greek. The Hebrew canon (where Protestants get their Bible) was established by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia Palestine in about the year 100 AD. The Jews at Jamnia rejected the seven books from the Hebrew canon (found in the LXX) chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the LXX supposedly translated into Greek. These Rabbis used 4 criteria to determining which books would be included in their new canon:

1. It had to be written in Hebrew
2. It had to conform with the Torah
3. It had to be older than the time of Ezra (400 BC)
4. It had to have been written in Palestine

During the time that these Rabbis were trying to compile their new canon, the relatively new cult of Christianity was growing among the Jews and Gentiles alike. The majority of these upstarts continued to use the Greek translation (the LXX) and this caused great concern amongst the Rabbis who viewed this new religion as a threat to Judaism. A separation needed to take place between the ancient Jewish religion and Christianity, and this new canon was a good place to take a stand.

Here are some others facts concerning the LXX that Protestants never seem to like to bring up:

1. Martin Luther actually included the 7 books in his first German translation.
2. The first King James Version (1611) included them as well.
3. The first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (printed a century BEFORE the council of Trent) included them.
4. Luther in his writings on the New Testament, noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible (never mind the fact that eight other Old Testament books such as the Song of Songs were also not quoted in the New Testament).
5. These seven books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

Wow, this knocked my sock off. Good Job. I am always told by other demominations that our Popes decided to keep the 7 in because without them we could not have certain traditions. Sometimes I get mad because I can’t see why a pope would want to mislead us regarding our salvation and works.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Church choose to use the Greek (Septuagint) because this was the most popular version at the time of Christ and was most likely the same version which Christ and His disciples used.

I would be curious as to your evidence behind the existence of a Greek (LXX) canon—versus simply the availability of Greek translations of various biblical books—prior to or up to the first century. I certainly don’t know of any. And IF such a canon did exist, why wouldn’t it be the same as the historical Greek canon/Septuagint? Versus the shorter Roman Catholic canon?

Now, fast-forward to 1529 AD and we find Martin Luther proposing to re-invent the Bible using the Hebrew canon.

Luther’s biblical theology really had nothing to do with the Hebrew canon.

Luther attempted to also remove several other books of the Catholic Bible (James, Esther, and Revelation) but his supporters did not look favorably on these other books being removed so Luther relented.

I would be curious where you got this information. As far as I know, there is no historical evidence to support this assertion.

 

[PJM]

=JillianRose;9351551]Dearest Friends,

Please try to help me if you can. Well, I would like to know why we have 7 extra books in Our Catholic Bible compared to Protestants? Was it always like that?

YES it was “Alway’s [as of Luther in the late 1500’s and his Revolutuon] like that”

First a bit of Factual and historical truth about the bible.

1. The Bible begin and remains a Catholic Book
2. It is the Catholic Church who "birthed the bile:
   
   COLLECTED THE OT BOOKS TO BE INCLUDED
   
   AUTHORED THE ENTIRE NEW TEATAMENT
   
   SET THE “73” BOOK CANON ABOUT ONE THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE THE KJB
   AND ITS MISSING SEVEN BOOKS
3. Only the CC; which is the ONLY Chruch and ONLY set of Faith beliefs authorized; guided, guarded, protected and INSPIRED by God has the literal ability to FULLY understand; translate and teach the bible.

Psalms 127:1 ““Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.”

**Mt. 16: 18-19 **“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock [ROCK = Foundation of you Peter] I will build my [SINGULAR] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Mt. 28:16, 18-20 “Now the eleven apostles went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ***Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, ***baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have[taught and] commanded you; and lo, I am with you [singular] always, to the close of the age.”

Each of these quotes verses were spoken to the Apostles and the authority to teach resides exclusively in its fullness of truth ONLY within the CC.

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

**1 John 4: 4 **Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Acts.20: 28 “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God [SINGULAR] which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”

2nd. Cor.11: 12-13 “And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.”

Romans 13: 2 “Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment”

Romans 16: 17-19 “ I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil;

2Pet.2:1 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”

It IS NOT the CC; the only Faith and ONLY Church founded and PROTECTED by Christ that changed; it was very mortal men

John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. “ … **John.20: 22 **“And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” … **Acts.1: 2 **“until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen”

My frriend I hope this adds to your understanding?

God Bless you.
pat /PJM

 

[kwortham]

Dearest Friends,

Please try to help me if you can. Well, I would like to know why we have 7 extra books in Our Catholic Bible compared to Protestants? Was it always like that?

First of all, there is no listing in history that matches the protestant canon before the time of Luther. It cannot be found anywhere before protestant history began. This is because the protestants removed books and made a bible of 66 books over 1600 years after Christ died. The protestant bible has no basis in history.

The following is the decree of the books of the real Bible from the Council of Rome in 382 AD, Pope Damasus pre-siding:

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, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings, Third and Fourth Books of Kings]; Paralipomenon, two books; 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 [First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy [First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle 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 [First Epistle of Peter and Second Epistle of Peter]; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles [Second Epistle of John and Third Epistle of John]; 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.”