Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[RaisedCatholic]

the canon has remained the same since the Council of Rome (allowing for the fact that some books were assumed to be included within other books, viz: Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah within Jeremiah etc.)

Again, historically, this is not true. Even Catholic apologists concede that the canon of Rome did not have the EXACT books included at Trent, like the additions of 1/3 Esdras. And when you read the lists of Doctors of the Church & other ECFs in the fourth century when the councils, like Rome, were taking place nearly ALL of them listed Baruch & the epistle as separate writings apart from Jeremiah. Think about it: if Baruch & the epistle were part of Jeremiah like Lamentations was, why would the Council of Rome list Lamentations SEPARATELY FROM JEREMIAH, but not Baruch & the epistle too? Especially since ECFs during this time listed Baruch & the epistle separately?

sure the Pharisees would not have approved of the council’s decision!

You make a BIG point of claiming JESUS and the Pharisees had the Protestant canon. That something YOU have not proved historically in the slightest.

False, I have demonstrated this NUMEROUS times:

1. Pharisees & Protestants had the exact same OT canon (source: Catholic Answers)
2. St. Paul was a Pharisee & defined the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets” (Romans 3:21)
3. Since St. Paul was a Pharisee, his OT canon (“the Law & the Prophets”) was limited to the books in the Protestant OT canon.
4. Jesus used this same term (“the Law & the Prophets”) to the Pharisees who were listening to everything He said (Luke 16:14-16).
5. Jesus stated the Pharisees had possession of the OT canon (“They have Moses & the Prophets”)(v.29), which would be limited to the books in the Protestant OT.

So, you may not “believe” this is true, but I did indeed address this numerous times with you & in this thread to others from both a Catholic source & a NT source.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

At this point I take it to be that the RCC added books to the OT. Luther removed these books because the Pharisees’ OT did not contain them.

Is that the point or did I oversimplify it?

Just to make a necessary addition to your conclusion: Luther realized, from the authority of Jesus in Luke 16, that He was affirming the canon of the Pharisees, which omitted the Deuteros, but included every book in the Hebrew Bible. He also realized Paul affirmed he was “still” a Pharisee, which means his OT canon would exclude these “extra books” which got added later to the Septuagint, and then into St. Jerome’s Vulgate, later church councils, and ultimately to earlier German translations.

But, yes, that’s the argument in a nutshell.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Hope this link works. Just a short video clip from Trent Horn with a little bit of good information. “Why Protestant Bibles are Smaller”

The comments in that video by Trent Horn are also addressed in the book. It’s too bad you don’t at least read the free section online, because the vast majority of arguments made in this thread by Catholics & others is addressed in the book! So much time would be saved if people would at least take the time to read at least the free section online, which costs not a dime, only time which would be worth your while & save you a lot of typing.

The problem with the video is that Trent assumes since the NT “alludes” to the Deuteros, that equates with them being Scripture. The problem is:

1. The NT also “alludes” - and even directly quotes - from other writings not found in the Catholic OT, which were also in the Septuagint. So, shouldn’t they also be included in the Catholic OT too, since “alluding” is Trent’s argument?
2. There are books in the OT the NT never even alludes to. So, why are they in Catholic OT’s, since “alluding” is his argument.
3. Simply quoting or alluding to a particular writing in the OT era is not the godly criteria that should be used in discerning an OT book, let alone a NT book. The book goes into detailed explanation of those godly criteria that even Catholics agree with.

Again, it would be worth your wile to at least read the free section online. You have absolutely nothing to lose, only volumes to gain for your benefit.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

False, I have demonstrated this NUMEROUS times:

1. Pharisees & Protestants had the exact same OT canon (source: Catholic Answers)
2. St. Paul was a Pharisee & defined the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets” (Romans 3:21)
3. Since St. Paul was a Pharisee, his OT canon (“the Law & the Prophets”) was limited to the books in the Protestant OT canon.
4. Jesus used this same term (“the Law & the Prophets”) to the Pharisees who were listening to everything He said (Luke 16:14-16).
5. Jesus stated the Pharisees had possession of the OT canon (“They have Moses & the Prophets”)(v.29), which would be limited to the books in the Protestant OT.

What?

1: No since there are NO Original Source Documents stating a canon for the Pharisees. THIS IS ALL FANCIFUL CONJECTURE.

2: Nowhere does St. Paul enumerate the OT canon of “the Law and the Prophets” as the Protestant OT canon. Again, pure wishful thinking on your part.

3: See above.

4: See above.

1. Again, see above.

The fact that you can see “the Law and the Prophets” or “They have Moses & the Prophets” as somehow endorsing the Protestant canon is utterly ludicrous and pushing an anachronistic agenda to the extreme. AND YET!! You will niggle at whether Baruch was or was not included in Jeremiah, when common usage then was that it was, depending on the locale and the custom in ancient times.

All you have demonstrated for us so far is you will swallow the camel while straining out the gnat!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Please produce a quote FROM JESUS saying “have you not read” or “It is written” from ALL the books of the Protestant OT Bible.

This is a strawman, because that is not the argument. These 300 metonyms ONLY refer to books from the so-called “Protocanon” which even the Catholic Church refers to them that way. In the Appendix of the book (and elsewhere in the book) the author mentions that prior to & contemporary with the time of Christ, the OT was “grouped” into subsections. Zechariah referred to the “former prophets” as one subjection. The 12 “minor prophets” were collected into a single book. Matthew stated he quoted Jeremiah, even though it was Zechariah. That’s because Jeremiah was the first book in “the Prophets” in the second section of the Hebrew Bible, which the Pharisees espoused to, which excluded the Deuteros like Baruch which was written centuries later, yet is classified as a “prophetic” book in the TOC in Catholic Bibles, like the NAB.

So, the fact that not “every” book from the Protestant OT uses one of these metonyms. The fact is when one is used in a subsection (like “Jeremiah” for Zechariah, or the “former prophets” etc) that metonym would apply to that entire subsection, not just that book.

Plus, as I’ve addressed over & over again, Jesus affirmed the canon of the Pharisees who espoused to this “smaller” canon, which is synonymous with later Protestants. So, requiring a “list” like what you’re asking for is unnecessary, since all you need to do is take all these arguments - as a whole - not in isolation which is what you are doing, which is why you don’t see that by Jesus & the NT writers using these 300 metonyms to apply ONLY to books in the Hebrew Bible (Protocanon) & not the Deuterocanon, they are really affirming the canon of the Pharisees, and that of later Protestants.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

What?

1: No since there are NO Original Source Documents stating a canon for the Pharisees. THIS IS ALL FANCIFUL CONJECTURE.

2: Nowhere does St. Paul enumerate the OT canon of “the Law and the Prophets” as the Protestant OT canon. Again, pure wishful thinking on your part.

I just addressed this in a different response. Refer there.

The fact that you can see “the Law and the Prophets” or “They have Moses & the Prophets” as somehow endorsing the Protestant canon is utterly ludicrous

In Luke 16:14, it states that the Pharisees were listening to EVERYTHING Jesus was saying.
In Luke 16:16, Jesus told the Pharisees “the Law & the Prophets” were proclaimed until John the Baptist.
To a Pharisee, “the Law & the Prophets” would have been limited to Hebrew Bible.
The apostle Paul stated “I AM” (present tense) a Pharisee (Acts 26:5).
The apostle Paul also defined the OT as “the Law & the Prophets” (Romans 3:21).
Catholic Answers affirms that Pharisees & Protestants share the same OT canon.
As a Pharisee, the OT canon (“the Law & the Prophets”) would be the same as Protestants.
When Jesus said “They have Moses & the Prophets,” (Luke 16:29), the “they” refers back to the Pharisees in Luke 16:14. The Greek word “have” (echo) means to have possession of something. So, Jesus was saying “The Pharisees have possession of ‘Moses & the Prophets’ (ie: OT canon).”
As Pharisees, they would have understood Jesus was telling them they “have possession” of the OT canon, which included the Hebrew Bible, but not the Deuteros.

I get you don’t “believer” this, but is explicit in Scripture & the Pharisee canon affirmed by Catholic Answers.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

…
To make it simple, what I’m asking is: if you believe the Catholic Church has the authority to define the Christian canon, because the Christian canon states the Church is the “pillar & shield of the truth,” then how do you which religious “church” has the authority to define the canon? Remember, if the “Church” defines the canon, that means the canon that defines what the Church is hadn’t been “defined” yet. Which came first, the Church or the canon? If you say the Church, then how do you know that unless an established canon was already formed prior to the existence of the Church?

The other simple question is:

1. Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what the OT canon was.
2. This means the OT canon was already formed prior to the existence of Jesus.
3. The Church wasn’t “built” until after the death & resurrection of Jesus.
4. This means the Church couldn’t have defined the OT canon, since it was built after the time of Jesus.

So, “what” was the OT canon prior to the time of Jesus (Who preceded the Church), which Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what it was? Those articles you posted don’t explicitly answer this question. The best they can do is address various Catholic OT lists, but this was AFTER the time of Christ, not BEFORE. And, again, they didn’t all agree on the exact same OT canon.

I moved this over to here from the Michael Voris page. It really doesn’t fit there.

To answer your question regarding what is in your book, a book is a lot to debate. I believe you said it had 300 scriptures to prove your point. I no longer debate scripture verses. Did that too much as a protestant. I now follow the authority of the Church in regards to Scripture.

Then as far as the videos and the articles, they do answer the question you are making. It is very clear. The Jewish people no longer had a right to decide on the OT canon. There were several Jewish Canons at the time. Some shorter, some longer. Jesus wanted the people at that time to know scripture. He did not say, know this Canon, it’s the one I want you to follow nor did he say it will be lost and then it will be brought back in the 1500’s by a man named Martin.

The early Christians, who were mostly Jewish, chose the OT Canon that the Catholic church has and has had traditionally since the days of early Christianity.

Jesus gave the keys to the Church to Peter. He started the Church on Peter and the apostles. As in the articles and video I posted, the answer is the OT Canon used by the Catholic church, is the OT Canon chosen by the early Christians. The people Jesus gave the Kingdom to and who He gave the authority to bind and loose.

Nothing personal about your book. I realize you want to promote it, but I follow the authority of Christ.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Nothing personal about your book but I follow the authority of Christ.

I think you have summed it up perfectly!

Ultimately the debate centers on authority, as do all Protestant debates.

If the OP is accurately taking his ideas from that book, it gives me a very low opinion about that book’s author and his level of scholarship.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I get you don’t “believer” this, but is explicit in Scripture & the Pharisee canon affirmed by Catholic Answers.

Even IF CA agrees with you (which I doubt) it has NO weight in this argument. The Church decided the canon 1600 years ago. That ENDED the debate for Catholic Christians.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Catholic Answers affirms that Pharisees & Protestants share the same OT canon.

This is it right here. This is probably what you heard somewhere on Catholic Answers. That is not the same as Catholic Answers affirming that the protestant OT is the correct canon.

While I understand that the protestants returned to the Jewish canon used by the pharisees, the early New Testament Jewish Christians, who started the Catholic Church did not choose that Canon. The Jewish non Christians had no authority to decide which OT Canon to use in the New Testament Church. Jesus said He was taking the kingdom away from them.

Martin Luther, rebelling against 1500 years of Christianity, chose the Canon used by the Pharisees. Not the apostles.

Jesus gave the authority to the New Testament Church, to the apostles. He gave them the authority to decide on the OT Canon. They did right from the start. We have the OT Canon they decided on here in the Catholic Church.

 

[angel12]

So, you may not “believe” this is true, but I did indeed address this numerous times with you & in this thread to others from both a Catholic source & a NT source.

And yet, you don’t seem to have convinced anyone here to abandon the canon of the Catholic Church. On a Catholic forum, yet. Go figure.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I believe you said it had 300 scriptures to prove your point. I no longer debate scripture verses. Did that too much as a protestant. I now follow the authority of the Church in regards to Scripture.

Once again, that is circular (“I now follow the authority of the Church in regards to Scripture.”) Again, you can’t use the Church to define the Scripture, since it’s from Scripture that we find out the meaning of what the Church is. Regarding the 300 passages in the NT that describe OT books, despite wishing to just dismiss them, they are extremely significant to the fact they ONLY reference books from the Hebrew Bible, but not the Deuteros. This is not the same as saying a NT merely “alludes” or “quotes” a writing from the OT era, like Trent Horn was arguing. Rather, these are metonyms, which are specifically designed to describe an OT inspired writing.

Then as far as the videos and the articles, they do answer the question you are making. It is very clear. The Jewish people no longer had a right to decide on the OT canon. There were several Jewish Canons at the time.

Again, the problem with the videos & articles bringing up the fact that there were numerous Jewish canons back then is completely irrelevant to the arguments from the book. Obviously, they couldn’t “all” be the complete OT canon, since as you said “some were shorter, some were bigger.” The point is that Jesus held them, particularly the Pharisees, accountable for knowing what the OT Scriptures were. Otherwise, He wouldn’t have rebuked & corrected them by asking, “Have you not read?” & “It is written.”

did he say it will be lost and then it will be brought back in the 1500’s by a man named Martin.

No one, including the book, is making the claim that the OT canon was “lost” until the 1500’s. So, that is a strawman. If you examine early church history, especially closer to the first century, what you find is that the OT canons of many ECFs, like Irenaenus, Athansius, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc were much closer to the Protestant canon than the Catholic or EO canon.

Jesus gave the keys to the Church to Peter. He started the Church on Peter and the apostles. As in the articles and video I posted, the answer is the OT Canon used by the Catholic church, is the OT Canon chosen by the early Christians

The first part is irrelevant to the OP & belongs on another thread. Regarding the second part (“the OT used by the Catholic church is the OT canon chosen by the early Christians”), inspired Scripture isn’t “chosen.” It’s inspired the moment it’s penned. And the OT canon was around long before the Church was built by Jesus. Again, Jesus could not have held the Jews accountable for knowing what the canon was if it wasn’t around. But He did, because it was.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

Nothing personal about your book. I realize you want to promote it, but I follow the authority of Christ.

No offense taken, but thanks anyhow. And I’m sure why you insist it’s “my book,” since I said I was looking for Gary Michuta’s book & found this one on Amazon first, and I simply agree Scripturally & historically on many of its arguments. And although I agree with you that you follow the authority of the Catholic church, based on the words of Jesus in Luke 16, I humbly disagree that you are following the authority of Christ, since the OT canon He acknowledged was not the same as later Catholicism.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Ultimately the debate centers on authority, as do all Protestant debates.

If the OP is accurately taking his ideas from that book, it gives me a very low opinion about that book’s author and his level of scholarship.

Yes, and if you read the first chapter of the book - which is free to read online - the “authority” that’s being taken is from Jesus & St. Paul themselves from the authority of the inspired NT. So, I’m sorry you have a “low opinion” of the words of Jesus & St. Paul from God-breathed Scripture, but unfortunately I can’t do anything about that.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Even IF CA agrees with you (which I doubt) it has NO weight in this argument. The Church decided the canon 1600 years ago. That ENDED the debate for Catholic Christians.

I agree with you that CA would not agree with my conclusions. All I am saying is CA would agree with me that Pharisees & Protestants shared the exact same OT canon. That being mutually agreed upon, then it logically follows that since St. Paul admitted to being a Pharisees, even after he converted to Christianity, as a Pharisee his OT canon would be the same as Protestants today. It’s really very simple. Unfortunately, instead of accepting this very simple logical argument, I’m afraid some are overthinking this in order to remain faithful to an authority that conflicts with the authority of Scripture & Jesus.

And, again, the Catholic church, nor any institution, “decides” what’s God-breathed. Scripture is God-breathed the moment it’s written. And the OT canon was inspired long before Jesus was born or before He built the Church.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

This is it right here. This is probably what you heard somewhere on Catholic Answers. That is not the same as Catholic Answers affirming that the protestant OT is the correct canon.

I never said that. So, I’m not sure what you are assuming this. My point is:

1. CA affirmed Pharisees & Protestants shared the same OT canon.
2. Paul was a Pharisee (even after his conversion), so his OT canon - as a Pharisee - would have been the same as Protestant OTs today.

 

[angel12]

I’m sorry you have a “low opinion” of the words of Jesus & St. Paul from God-breathed Scripture,

That was untrue and uncharitable. The CAF guidelines include this:
“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I agree with you that CA would not agree with my conclusions. All I am saying is CA would agree with me that Pharisees & Protestants shared the exact same OT canon. That being mutually agreed upon, then it logically follows that since St. Paul admitted to being a Pharisees, even after he converted to Christianity, as a Pharisee his OT canon would be the same as Protestants today. It’s really very simple. Unfortunately, instead of accepting this very simple logical argument, I’m afraid some are overthinking this in order to remain faithful to an authority that conflicts with the authority of Scripture & Jesus.

And, again, the Catholic church, nor any institution, “decides” what’s God-breathed. Scripture is God-breathed the moment it’s written. And the OT canon was inspired long before Jesus was born or before He built the Church.

How then can Luther (or your pet author) have “decided” on what was God-breathed? It’s ok for them, but not the Catholic Christian Church?

The HISTORICAL fact is that there WAS NO CANON OF THE PHARISEES. You keep stating it as if it is unquestioned. The Jews did not establish their Canon of the Hebrew Bible until AFTER the establishment of the Christian Church. THAT IS HISTORY. Ask any knowledgeable Jew or Church Historian.

There was NO NEED for a canon in the time of Jesus. The Jews followed their traditions, which included their written books of the Law and the Prophets (as well as “the writings”.) The Pharisees DID NOT decide the canon for the JEWS. Nor did Jesus ever explicitly OR implicitly (in Scripture) establish a canon or endorse one. He gave the KEYS to Peter and His Apostles to decide these things, as well as TEACHING THEM DIRECTLY what was God-Breathed and what wasn’t OR how to know it through the Holy Spirit, which has ever guided the Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Christian Church.

IT IS ENTIRELY A PROTESTANT INVENTION that the Bible is the final and last word in deciding questions (and not the Church that Jesus explicitly SAID would have that authority.) That is WHY the canon is SO CRUCIAL to Protestants. The result? Thousands of various sects, all with opposing doctrines. The ONLY thing they can ALL agree on is that the Catholic Christian Church is dead wrong.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

since it’s from Scripture that we find out the meaning of what the Church is also.

That is only a partial truth. Tradition, what they learned at the feet of Christ, handed down by the apostles points us to the Church.

The point is that Jesus held them, particularly the Pharisees, accountable for knowing what the OT Scriptures were. Otherwise, He wouldn’t have rebuked & corrected them by asking, “Have you not read?” & “It is written.

That is just a personal opinion. It was definitely important to know the Scriptures but again Jesus never said, follow only the books of the Pharisees.

No one, including the book, is making the claim that the OT canon was “lost” until the 1500’s. So, that is a strawman. If you examine early church history, especially closer to the first century, what you find is that the OT canons of many ECFs, like Irenaenus, Athansius, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc were much closer to the Protestant canon than the Catholic or EO canon.

I am an ex protestant. I have heard this argument about the canon many times before, way over 20 years ago, and that is almost always the protestant belief, that Martin Luther figured out what was the right canon. I am sure this same argument was held during Luthers time also.

No matter your interpretation or belief is of what the ECF’s said, believed or thought, they were faithful to the Church and the Church alone has the authority to choose the canon.

The first part is irrelevant to the OP & belongs on another thread

It is not irrelevant because the whole debate lies on one thought, who had authority to choose which OT canon. Peter, the remaining apostles, the early Church Christians and not Luther and not us today. The apostles and ECF’s were being led by the Holy Spirit because that is what Jesus promised He would do. We can trust Jesus’ words.

So again, bottom line. The Jews did not have the authority to say this canon or that canon. Jesus gave the Catholic church the authority. He promised to lead them by the Holy Spirit and to doubt what the Church teaches is doubting the power of the Holy Spirit. I am, also, sure the apostles and early Church chose that canon based on the teachings of Christ. They did not have the NT, so they couldn’t go by that, so they were going by what Jesus said to them.

If you reject the Catholic church and what it teaches, you are rejecting what Christ gave us.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If the OP is accurately taking his ideas from that book, it gives me a very low opinion about that book’s author and his level of scholarship.

It was not meant to be “uncharitable” nor meant to go against CAF guidelines. It context it was a response to the “uncharitable” comment about having a “low opinion” about the author of the book & the level of scholarship, which was based on the words of Jesus in the NT, as well as from Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers. So, when AmbroseSJ stated he had a “low opinion” of the scholarship of the author & the book, the “scholarship” from the book was taken directly from the words of Jesus from Scripture. Any deeper meaning of my words is reading too deep into what I actually said. However, AmbroseSJ’s comment was explicitly uncharitable.