P
PMV
Guest
Why does the Protestant Bible have less books than the Catholic one? I want the history of this and the once and for all truth.
- Status
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
There are a combination of reasons.
One is that some of the Reformers eliminated some of the books that contained support for Catholic beliefs they did not hold.
The other was just as the Jews attempted to remove themselves from the Christians by defining a Canon of the Old Testament different from the LXX which the Christians adpoted. The Reformers wanted to distance themselves from the Catholic Church so they adopted the Jewish Canon which dropped some of the books they needed to eliminate anyway.
J
JGC
Guest
Luther even had disdain for some of the New Testament referring to the letter of James as an ‘epistle of straw’
Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (author of a massive six-volume biography), writes:
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ325.HTM
Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (author of a massive six-volume biography), writes:
Code:
His criticism of the Bible proceeds along entirely subjective and arbitrary lines. The value of the sacred writings is measured by the rule of his own doctrine.
M
mayra_hart
Guest
the principle reason luther seems to have opposed the additional books of the christian OT is that they taught doctrines he did not like, such as praying for the dead(2maccabees 12:42-45).god make me an instrument of your peace
R
rossum
Guest
In the early days of Christianity there were different versions of scripture around - the Eastern church generally used the Greek Septuagint and the Western church used the Latin Vulgate. Both of these included the Old Testament Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books.
The Jews decided what their canonical scriptures would be in about 100 CE at Jamnia. From this time on there was discussion within the church as to what to do with those books which were in the Christian Old Testament but not in the Jewish canon. The consensus of the church was to include the extra books, but there was always a minority against, so there are early church authorities with different points of view. Both the Western and Eastern churches kept their respective translations, including the Apocrypha, when they split in 1054 CE.
When the Protestants split from the Catholics they decided only to use those Old Testament books which also appeared in Jewish scriptures, so the Apocrypha were dropped from Protestant Bibles or moved to an appendix.
Current situation:
Protestant OT – 39 books
Catholic OT – 39 plus Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. Also Esther and Daniel include extra material not found in the Protestant versions.
Eastern Orthodox OT – as Catholic (46 books) plus 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and 3 Maccabees. Also psalm 151 is added after psalm 150.
rossum
C
CnDWelch
Guest
The Catholic Old Testament has been the same since the 4th century when councils started listed which books are inspired. All of these councils included the dueterocanonical books, so called apocryphal by protestants. Here is some info:
catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
M
mark_a
Guest
They took out the writings that otherwise make christians Catholics (or Orthodox?)
Help me out Fr. Ambrose…
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
…except in the Catholic Church.
A
Ann78
Guest
Rossum’s above explanation is right on.
Luther went with the Jewish Council’s decision. Since the books (OT) were written by Jews, he decided that what was good enough for Jews was good enough for Christians. When translated from Latin, the Apocrypha was moved to the appendix of the OT and eventually left out entirely in non-Catholic versions (I hate it that refer to all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian denominations as “Protestant”. It’s such a misnomer. Most of them had nothing to do with the protesting of the Reformation). Luther said those books were okay for reading, but not inspired by God.
He also left out some books of the NT. These were Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Sometime during the 40 years after the Reformation, Lutherans eventually reinstated them as part of the standard New Testament.
Luther went with the Jewish Council’s decision. Since the books (OT) were written by Jews, he decided that what was good enough for Jews was good enough for Christians. When translated from Latin, the Apocrypha was moved to the appendix of the OT and eventually left out entirely in non-Catholic versions (I hate it that refer to all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian denominations as “Protestant”. It’s such a misnomer. Most of them had nothing to do with the protesting of the Reformation). Luther said those books were okay for reading, but not inspired by God.
He also left out some books of the NT. These were Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Sometime during the 40 years after the Reformation, Lutherans eventually reinstated them as part of the standard New Testament.
C
Calbreese
Guest
The first King James Version had the “extra” seven books. There is one on display at the U of Chicago. The 1529 Edition had seven less books as the PRINTERS left them out! IHS Daryl
R
rossum
Guest
You are not the first to comment on my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrectht: Brill.
I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the Buddhist religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when describing the fundamental nature of reality.
For an advanced philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. This might be rather heavy going for those of you not philosophically inclined. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:
rossum
- Status