Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[Prodigal1984]

Thanks for the info. Very interesting. Even though not recognized as canonical, didn’t realize they were included as late as the Douay-Rheims. But 1(3) Esdras was in the those early councils.

Of course. Yah I think they(1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh) should be available in Catholic Bibles ( Kind of like how some Protestant Bibles include the Apocrypha)in an appendix again as being worthy to be read because of its ancient usage in the Church. I mean a lot of people will probably see 4 Esdras cited as the source of our prayer for the dead, Eternal rest grant unto them oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them and see it says 4 Esdras 2:34-35 and have no idea what that is.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Look at the Orthodox. They have the same books in their bible that we do (a couple more, actually). Always have had. Why is this dude not railing against the Orthodox?

He does have an entire chapter on the Eastern Orthodox Bible, so it does sound like he addresses it, but again, it’s not in the free section on Amazon.

I don’t know what his intention is for writing the book, so I wouldn’t want to just assume he’s writing it solely for money. Just out of curiosity, have you read the free section on Amazon? From what I’ve read of it, he seems to take the position that the New Testament writers, Jesus, His disciples, and even St. Paul believed in the books found solely in the Protestant Old Testament. If you read it, it’s an interesting take.

In Chapter 10 of the TOC, he does address the New Testament. So, maybe he explains there why Protestants embrace the New Testament, but not “all” of the Old Testament books in Catholic Bibles. But again, that’s not in the free section.

 

[po18guy]

However, that still does not address the issue that 91% of quotes in the New Testament, including those attributed to our Lord, come from the Septuagint collection.

The Deuterocanon was included in the canon as stated at the Council of Rome in 382, by Pope Damasis I.

I do not understand how this man is gaining any traction whatsoever. His only argument is that neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox got it right and only a single rebellious Augustinian in Germany, 1,500 years later, was able to “divine” the true and correct canon.

Might as well read up on what the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Latter Day Saints have to say. After all, their beliefs are based on the exact same bible as the reformers.

Who is to judge which of them is correct?

 

[ZMystiCat]

In the TOC, there is a subsection that deals with 2 Maccabees & Purgatory.

I do get a chuckle out of arguments that boil down to, “X isn’t in the Bible, so it is wrong. X is in [deuterocanonical book], so [deuterocanonical book] can’t be part of the canon.” Sometimes, the two parts aren’t said together, but either way, it shows a bit of a gap in logic.

Also, not say that that’s what the author argues. You comment just reminded me of all the times I’ve encountered this.

I looked it up, and he does quote him word-for-word.

I think the concern is less whether or not he quotes Jimmy Akin and others word-for-word and more whether or not he quotes them in proper context and doesn’t just cherry pick the occasionally weak argument.

To use Catholic sources against Catholicism is an oxymoron

Generally, speaking, if you’re going to be making an argument against something, you need to show that that something exists, lest you be accused of making a strawman. On forums, we can kind of get away with it, since anyone can ask after the fact. Books need to get it down right away.

But then you study the Septuagint and it turns out Catholics don’t even accept all of the books from it.

Unless I’m mistaken, Trent only established what is certainly canon. It didn’t declare the other books non-canonical.

Also, an inconsistent application of an argument doesn’t make the argument itself invalid. It just means that the one making the argument hasn’t fully applied it to their practice yet. The Church could still, in theory, declare the remaining books certainly canonical, but for historical reasons, just didn’t at Trent and hasn’t since.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Unless I’m mistaken, Trent only established what is certainly canon. It didn’t declare the other books non-canonical.

Also, an inconsistent application of an argument doesn’t make the argument itself invalid. It just means that the one making the argument hasn’t fully applied it to their practice yet. The Church could still, in theory, declare the remaining books certainly canonical, but for historical reasons, just didn’t at Trent and hasn’t since.

What does “canonical” mean in context to the Biblical canon & Scripture? Since all Scripture is God-breathed, does this mean that there are books that the Church “could” add to the Bible that are canon, but not Inspired Scripture? If not, then could there potentially be Inspired, canonical books still out there that the Church could add later?

I looked it up, and he does quote him word-for-word.

I read the free section online, which covers the Intro & most of Chapter One. This is his basic premise in quoting Jimmy Akin:

1. The Pharisees & later Protestants share all the same books in their Old Testament (source: Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers)
2. St. Paul was a Pharisee even after he converted to Christianity.
3. St. Paul used the term “the Law & the Prophets” to describe the entire OT canon as a whole.
4. As a Pharisee, Paul would have understood “the Law & the Prophets” to refer to the same books that are in Protestant OTs today.
5. Jesus used this same term (“the Law & the Prophets”) to describe the OT canon when he was speaking to the Pharisees who were listening to everything He said.
6. Jesus used a similar term (“Moses & the Pharisees”) to describe the OT canon, when He said, “They (the Pharisees) have Moses & the Prophets.”
7. The Greek word for “have” (“echo”) means to have possession of something.
8. Jesus was saying the Pharisees “have possession” of the OT canon (“Moses & the Prophets”)
9. The disciples, like St. Philip, stated “we have found the Messiah who Moses & the Prophets (the Old Testament) spoke of.”
10. Jesus & His disciples were saying the Pharisees possessed the entire OT canon (“the Law (of Moses) & the Prophets”), which was the same as that of later Protestants.

This is all in the free section on Amazon. This seems to be the crux of his argument. Unfortunately, most of it, like Purgatory & 2 Maccabees is not.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

However, that still does not address the issue that 91% of quotes in the New Testament, including those attributed to our Lord, come from the Septuagint collection.

The Deuterocanon was included in the canon as stated at the Council of Rome in 382, by Pope Damasis I.

I do not understand how this man is gaining any traction whatsoever. His only argument is that neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox got it right and only a single rebellious Augustinian in Germany, 1,500 years later, was able to “divine” the true and correct canon.

Might as well read up on what the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Latter Day Saints have to say. After all, their beliefs are based on the exact same bible as the reformers.

Who is to judge which of them is correct?

In the TOC, he has a section called “the Septuagint & the Apocrypha” - which he seems to distinguish it from the Deuterocanon. This seems to mean that there were books the Catholic Church would classify as Apocrypha that were in the Septuagint too. But, this too is not in the free section online.

He also has a chapter on the 4th century church councils, including a subsection on the Council of Rome, but it too is not in the free section. Perhaps he addresses what you said there???

He also has sections on early church fathers & an entire chapter on the Eastern Orthodox Bible. Again, perhaps, he says something about them there?

As far as the JW’s & Mormons - not really. They changed the wording in their Bibles to fit their theology. Plus, they teach work-based salvation, not “faith alone,” which is what the reformers taught, regardless of whether they were right or not.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Church history, and the forming of the canon, is not a tidy issue that fits neatly into a box. The focus for the Christian Church had, up to that point, always been on preaching. The New Testament was hotly debated for decades, centuries even. We have 27 NT books/letters. There was over 100 NT-related writings vying for canonicity.

So, does this mean that Jesus & the disciples & the NT writers didn’t know what was classified as Inspired Scripture in the first century? If not, then why did it take centuries to agree on the entire Biblical canon - not just the New, but also the Old Testament? Ironically, he has a subsection in his book called “Why was the Old Testament not preserved?” Curious to what he came up with.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

That still doesn’t answer the paradox here.
We use the Septuagint to defend the books we have, which I’m totally fine with. But why be inconsistent? If you’re going to say you use something as a defense we shouldn’t be omitting books that were also from it. Otherwise we should quit the septuagint talk and just say this is how it is.

Good point! And he does have an entire chapter devoted to the Septuagint. I wonder if he addresses that there?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Because it was a valid collection of books, Christ quoted from it, established His Church, gave it all authority on earth and in heaven, and His Church tested all available writings and decided under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Then why is 1 Enoch not in the canon, since the NT writers, like St. Jude, quoted from it, if quoting from these collection of books is the criteria for including them? Also, didn’t Trent Horn say in a video that Esther & some others are never quoted nor alluded to in the NT? If so, since they aren’t quoted or alluded to, then why are they in Catholic, Protestant, & Eastern Orthodox Bibles?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I wish I could find Catholic Translations in Hotels and Doctors offices. I go to the doctor or a clinic and there is a bible but it is a different translation. I love Dohuay Rheims Bible.

I noticed in his book he has an entire chapter on the Douay-Rheims Bible. Curious what he has to say about it.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

• Martin Luther, driven by what became an irrational, visceral hatred of his own Catholic Church, sought out the Hebrew canon of scripture and decided, unilaterally, to adopt it. This was over 1,500 years after all of the current Catholic/Orthodox books had been in use in the Churches.
• The Hebrew canon specifically and categorically rejects books which pointed to Christ.
• This strikes me as surreal, therefore I pay no attention to those who argue for Luther’s personal opinion. That he was able to convince others is a credit to the man’s charismatic traits and persuasive power, but he had zero authority to do anything that he did.
• The Catholic Church need not ‘prove’ anything. The burden of proof is solely upon those making accusations, and IME they fail 100%.

I don’t know what the author’s motivation is, but I don’t think it’s fair to assume what it was without reading it. Even though he has a subsection on Luther, it doesn’t look from the TOC that that’s his whole argument. He has chapters & subsections on the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the church councils, the early church fathers, the Eastern Orthodox Bible, the Douay-Rheims, Cardinals, Erasmus, and other prominent Catholic theologians, etc. Luther only seems to be one talking point, & doesn’t appear the basis of the book. Most of it seems to address people, councils, translations, etc long before Luther was even born.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I respect your view and you are certainly under no obligation to read any book that you feel is corrosive to your faith.

I, personally, like to read from multiple sources if they are well researched and accurate as I like to understand where different faiths are coming from. Obviously millions of Protestants feel justified leaving certain books out of the Bible and I like to know what their justifications are. I also like to read the Catholic and Orthodox justifications for those they include. It creates better understanding of both sides whether you agree with those justifications or not.

But that’s just me.

If you decide to read it, let me know & share what you found out about it. I am curious as well!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I do agree with one point he makes which has always been a stumbling point to me.

One of the common defenses for why Catholic Bibles are “bigger” than Protestant Bibles – particularly the Old Testament – is Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted frequently from the Septuagint. However, Eastern Orthodox Bibles are also based on the Septuagint, yet their Old Testament is “bigger” than Catholic ones.

This has always bothered me because in RCIA they show this video on the Catholic Bible and they throw the Septuagint as a defense through the whole thing. But then you study the Septuagint and it turns out Catholics don’t even accept all of the books from it. So why? And why not? Why cherry pick? I think if you want to use the Septuagint as the cause validly the Church should use all of its books like the Orthodox do. It really is hard to say it is because of the Septuagint when we aren’t even true to it completely.

Curious if he addresses it, since he has chapters devoted to these topics. Might be worth the effort to get it & find out?

 

[bassmansteiny]

Yup, I agree

 

[po18guy]

As far as the JW’s & Mormons - not really. They changed the wording in their Bibles to fit their theology. Plus, they teach work-based salvation, not “faith alone,” which is what the reformers taught, regardless of whether they were right or not.

Oh, but wait! Both LDS/JW were founded on the KJV! Same bible, same wording. Sola scriptura, baby! They morphed since then, but so has each and every post-reformation denomination - some are unrecognizable today, and would not be recognized by their founders.

 

[adf417]

If you decide to read it, let me know & share what you found out about it. I am curious as well!

Does this me you will not be buying the book yourself, one you seem to be most curious about?

Peace!!!

 

[po18guy]

Curious if he addresses it, since he has chapters devoted to these topics. Might be worth the effort to get it & find out?

Hmmmm… on a Catholic forum, we have posters fascinated with the concept of proving the Catholic Church wrong.

Surreal.

Far better than any of us have tried to do that for almost 2,000 years and failed.

As to the Deuterocanonicals, I could not care less who wrote them, when, where and in what language.

The Church has tested them over time and they passed every test.

Has anyone here actually read those books?

 

[po18guy]

Because it was tested and failed. In the Old Testament times, there was certainly human authority regarding the sacred scrolls, but in the NT, Christ breathed the Holy Spirit upon His Apostles and gave them ALL authority - in heaven and on earth. Acts 15 is the first such example and it is the sole reason why Christian men need not be circumcized.

You know how many alleged New Testament letters and books were circulating? Over 100! We have 27 which passed the test.

Due to that new authority, all available writings were tested. The Church waited way too long to announce the canon set in stone - but hear this:

The Church acts mainly in response to heresy. This takes time, investigation, gatherings from the corners of the earth, argumentaion, point-counterpoint and finally a vote is taken after involking the Holy Spirit and concrete is poured.

Things happen much more quickly and erroneously in the bible Christian world, because one man (or a few) can decide on a mere whim. And some of them pretty much have.

Not so with Christ’s Church.

 

[po18guy]

So, does this mean that Jesus & the disciples & the NT writers didn’t know what was classified as Inspired Scripture in the first century? If not, then why did it take centuries to agree on the entire Biblical canon - not just the New, but also the Old Testament? Ironically, he has a subsection in his book called “Why was the Old Testament not preserved?” Curious to what he came up with.

Again, at the start, the Christian Church used no scripture! They preached, just as Jesus taught and commanded them to. They did not write, because Jesus did not teach them or command them to write. Read the Didache! Not a peep about any writing at all. Zip. Zero. Nada. That was during the lifetime of the Apostle John and it is a verified document - it’s just not popular with bible-alone types, for obvious reasons.

As the Apostles died off, and the Parousia had not occurred, it was prudent to record the basics for future generations.

But, think of the ancient world: Churches far from each other, speaking different languages. Travel was by foot or donkey - by ship if you were lucky and didn’t wreck. So a letter shows up that claims to be from Paul - but he’s dead! What to do with it? There were 100+ of these spurious letters and books.

 

[ZMystiCat]

What does “canonical” mean in context to the Biblical canon & Scripture?

Canonical in the sense that it is confirmed to be or not to be Scripture. Trent declared dogmatically that certain writings are Scripture. To my knowledge, it did not declare any writing as certainly not Scripture.

• The Pharisees & later Protestants share all the same books in their Old Testament (source: Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers)
• St. Paul was a Pharisee even after he converted to Christianity.
• As a Pharisee, Paul would have understood “the Law & the Prophets” to refer to the same books that are in Protestant OTs today.
• Jesus was saying the Pharisees “have possession” of the OT canon (“Moses & the Prophets”)
• Jesus & His disciples were saying the Pharisees possessed the entire OT canon (“the Law (of Moses) & the Prophets”), which was the same as that of later Protestants.

Most of this is pretty standard knowledge. I’d imagine Jimmy Akin would have also noted that the Pharisees did not have an established canon during the life of Jesus and Paul, and if that isn’t present, the guy is leaving out very pertinent information and not really engaging with the argument, which is kind of what I think many worry about.

The Greek word for “have” (“echo”) means to have possession of something.

I mean, obviously they had possession of the Scriptures. They wouldn’t have been able to study them otherwise. I’m not really sure what point he was trying to make here.