Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

[MagdalenaRita]

You have a lot of comments here but my first thought is that I have absolutely no idea who the man is that wrote the book that you are talking about. How could I ever know that he is being by the Holy Spirit or led astray. I am an ex protestant and heard many different theologies and some were definitely not being led by the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic church predates the Bible.The early Christians did not go to Church with their Bible in hand. There were many books that the Catholic church had to look at and decide whether or not they should be considered part of the Scriptures. Many letters were being floated around.

The Holy Spirit did inspire what books should be in the Canon but He inspired the Catholic church. Even though many of the first Christians were Jewish, as time went on the Jewish people came to reject Christianity and it was the Catholic church that continued.

When Martin Luther, who came along 1500 years later, went back to what is now the protestant OT canon he was choosing a canon that was decided by those who rejected Christianity. God did not give Martin Luther the authority to attack the Scriptures.

You need to be able to trust that He who put the Bible together will keep it together. It was man who changed things.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The authors (Bersma/Pitre) go to GREAT PAINS with their tables to PROVE that since the council of Rome and other contemporary councils the Catholic Christian Canon has not changed ONE IOTA! Not during Florence or Trent etc. or any other council as Protestants like to pretend.

Historically, nor from their book, can this claim be verified. In the chapter on the fourth century councils in the book in the OP, the author demonstrates the Biblical canon was not consistent between the fourth century councils. While “most” of the books were included (including most of the Deuterocanon), a careful study of these councils were not universal in the number of books in each of them. Even some of the attendees in the Council of Rome, like Epiphaneus of Salamis, St. Jerome, & others, preferred the “smaller” canon that excluded the Deuterocanon, not just Baruch & the epistle.

the Catholic Christian Canon has not changed ONE IOTA! Not during Florence or Trent etc. or any other council as Protestants like to pretend.

Again, Baruch & the epistle were absent from all of these fourth century councils, as well as from St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which didn’t get “added” for another 400 years. Both Catholic.com & NewAdvent.org acknowledge Codex Amiatinus which was a faithful rendition of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, omitted Baruch. This means at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (A.D. 787), that version of the Vulgate omitted Baruch which was later included at the Ecumenical Councils of Florence & Trent - meaning we even have ecumenical councils disagreeing with each other on the OT canon!

As I said way back when; For a Thousand Years, the canon was unquestioned and accepted by all of Catholic Christendom, until Martin Luther decided that the issue was never settled to HIS satisfaction (mainly because of his heretical beliefs and teachings.)

While this is a common “belief” taught within Catholicism, a careful discerning study on the intentions of Luther & the Reformers on the canon dispels this myth. Their reasoning for excluding the Deuteros date back not just to St. Jerome, but even further to the time of Christ - and before - which the book in the OP goes into more detail that is too vast to rewrite here. I highly encourage you to at least read the FREE section online to get a grasp on it.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You have a lot of comments here but my first thought is that I have absolutely no idea who the man is that wrote the book that you are talking about. How could I ever know that he is being by the Holy Spirit or led astray. I am an ex protestant and heard many different theologies and some were definitely not being led by the Holy Spirit.

Just out of curiosity, did you read the free section online? Because the author begins with the authority of the NEW Testament - the same 27 book canon that is not in dispute between Catholics & Protestants. So, he begins with this same agreed upon NT canon, beginning with the authority of Jesus, St. Paul, and Jesus’ disciples. And he uses the original Greek meanings of words Jesus et al uses, instead of the English translations. By doing this, he allowed the Holy Spirit Who “breathed” Scripture through the original NT language to explain what a particular word originally meant. By doing this, he did not impute his own personal & subjective “view” to determine what books belong in the OT, but what Jesus et al themselves acknowledged were in it.

The Catholic church predates the Bible.The early Christians did not go to Church with their Bible in hand. There were many books that the Catholic church had to look at and decide whether or not they should be considered part of the Scriptures. Many letters were being floated around.

While the Catholic Church “predates” the New Testament, it did not predate the Bible, which includes the Old Testament too. The Church was “built” in the early A.D. 30’s, but the OT was completed centuries before the Church was built. When you say the Church predated “the Bible,” I believe you more specifically referring to the NEW Testament, not the entire Bible. The Bible - which includes the OLD Testament too - was written & completed centuries before Jesus “became flesh.” And Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what it was (“Have you not READ?” / “It is WRITTEN” / “the SCRIPTURES say” etc.). If the boundaries of the OT “Scriptures” were not completely “written” by the time of Jesus, He could not have been able to make the Jew accountable for what they “read.” But He did, on numerous occasions. And Jesus stated that the Pharisees, in particular, “possessed” the OT canon (Luke 16:14,29), which Jimmy Akin (Catholic Answers) stated was the same as Protestant OTs today.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

God did not give Martin Luther the authority to attack the Scriptures.

You need to be able to trust that He who put the Bible together will keep it together. It was man who changed things.

So, the Jews who “put the OT canon” together were later shared by the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, which He acknowledged. This is what made their rejection of Him as their long-awaited Messiah so heinous. Had they stuck to their OT canon - “the Law & the Prophets” (Luke 16:14,16), like Jesus’ disciples did (John 1:45), and had not “added” their man-made “traditions” which “transgressed” their OT canon (Matthew 15:1-9), they wouldn’t have rejected their Messiah. But they did.

When you are able to trust “who” God entrusted the OLD Testament canon BEFORE & contemporary with the time of Jesus, you’ll realize the Catholic Church “added” books to the OT, not Luther & the Reformers “removing” books. The latter simply went back to the NT (and before) & based the OT canon on the authority of Jesus, Who acknowledged the Pharisee’s OT canon, not the Deuteros too.\

Because I cannot reproduce the ENTIRE book in the OP for obvious reasons, if you simply take the time to read the free section online, I think you’ll find it compelling since the author doesn’t begin with his OWN authority, nor that of the Reformers, but on JESUS’ authority & the NT canon Protestants share & agree with Catholics.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Again, Baruch & the epistle were absent from all of these fourth century councils, as well as from St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which didn’t get “added” for another 400 years.

This is something I agree with you on.
If Baruch is in the Canon than so also should 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh, which also began being printed in the Vulgate in three or four centuries after.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

This is something I agree with you on.
If Baruch is in the Canon than so also should 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh, which also began being printed in the Vulgate in three or four centuries after.

The problem for Catholicism is that it’s “believed” that Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah were originally “part” of the book of Jeremiah, which is why they “believe” neither writing is mentioned by name in the fourth century councils. But the problem with these “beliefs,” is that we can find ECFs (even Doctors of the Church) who listed them as separate writings from both Jeremiah & Lamentations in the fourth century - and even before (like St. Irenaeus). And like I said, even the Council of Rome, listed every other Deuterocanonical book BY NAME, but not Baruch & the epistle. It even lists Lamentations separately from the book of Jeremiah, but not Baruch & the epistle, even though Lamentations WAS originally part of the book of Jeremiah.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Just out of curiosity, did you read the free section online?

No and to be honest with you I won’t either. As I said I am an ex protestant and have heard so many different theological theories about scripture and God. I have come to know and believe with all my heart that the Catholic church is the one true Church, there is no reason to read any further arguments against it.

While the Catholic Church “predates” the New Testament , it did not predate the Bible, which includes the Old Testament too. The Church was “built” in the early A.D. 30’s, but the OT was completed centuries before the Church was built. When you say the Church predated “the Bible,” I believe you more specifically referring to the NEW Testament, not the entire Bible

While I completely agree with this, the Jewish people did not have the Bible as we know it today. Yes, the OT does predate the Catholic church but the Catholic church fulfills many OT prophecies.

Jimmy Akin (Catholic Answers) stated was the same as Protestant OTs today.

I do not listen to Jimmy Akins, not a big fan but he can be right on the mark at times. I would need to see a complete quote and context before I would be able to comment.
Again, I am not sure what Jimmy Akin said but even so he, the same as the author of the book, have not been given authority to decide canons in Scripture. That authority has only been given to the Catholic church.

When you are able to trust “who” God entrusted the OLD Testament canon

I do, I trust Jesus, who gave authority to the Catholic church. He did not give any protestant the authority to change scripture.
There was not any universally-accepted canon of Scripture among the Jews in the first century A.D. Different sects within Judaism had different views of which books were inspired and authoritative. The pharasees, the saducees, the essenes for example all had different views of what was inspired.

if you simply take the time to read the free section online, I think you’ll find it compelling

I’m sorry, I will pass. As I said I have been down that road before. I even used to make the same arguments you are making. I learned after a while that they are incomplete truths.

God bless.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Just out of curiosity, did you read the free section online?

That is certainly your prerogative. But since we both agree that the Bible - both OT & NT - are God-breathed, then if this author can demonstrate from the NT canon we agree on that Jesus did indeed affirm the OT canon of the Pharisees which is synonymous with Protestants, then how is your voluntary reluctance to explore a resource, which BEGINS with Jesus & the NT canon we agree on, truly objective? I understand you say you believe what Jesus says, and I have no reason to doubt you. But simply acknowledging one religious institution’s “view” over another, without even making the effort to examine another’s because you trust your “heart,” how is that really being objective. I get you were once a Protestant, but despite differences in how they understand the Bible is irrelevant to the fact they ALL share the same Biblical canon, which is the canon of the Pharisees, which Jesus affirmed in the NT we agree on.

While I completely agree with this, the Jewish people did not have the Bible as we know it today.

And, again, the Pharisees - specifically - had the same OT canon Protestants do today, which Jesus acknowledged in the NT.

I do not listen to Jimmy Akins, not a big fan but he can be right on the mark at times. I would need to see a complete quote and context before I would be able to comment.

As you know Jimmy Akin is the senior apologist for Catholic Answers. So he would not be arguing for the Protestant OT canon, but the Catholic OT canon, which he has done on many occasions. So, he does not think he has “authority” to define the OT canon. But what he did - most likely unknowingly - was affirm the OT canon of Protestants by acknowledging that they shared the same canon as the Pharisees which Jesus acknowledged in the NT.

Here is the Catholic Answers video on the OT canon. It begins around the 50 second mark:

[Jimmy Akin - “How did the OT canon develop?” (Catholic Answers)]
(

)

He did not give any protestant the authority to change scripture.
There was not any universally-accepted canon of Scripture among the Jews in the first century A.D. Different sects within Judaism had different views of which books were inspired and authoritative. The pharasees, the saducees, the essenes for example all had different views of what was inspired.

The author of the book does not claim this. So, I’m not sure why you are using this argument. He also acknowledged not all Jews believed in the same canon (he even gives examples in his book). So, not sure why you brought this up, since the argument has never been that “ALL Jews” believed in the same canon. Again, Jesus specifically acknowledged the PHARISEES OT canon, not these other Jewish sects. So I’m afraid your rejection of the book’s argument doesn’t have to do with his actual argument.

[cont]

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Historically, nor from their book, can this claim be verified.

Apparently you quoted the Pitre/Bergsma book only when you thought it made your point; but when it was shown that it doesn’t, you revert back to the OP author as the ultimate authority of what YOU think can be verified historically.

Your interpretation of “history” appears to be driven by prejudice and animus toward the Catholic Church.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

I’m sorry, I will pass. As I said I have been down that road before. I even used to make the same arguments you are making.

Based on your last reply, it doesn’t sound like you have. You said “Not all JEWS believed in the same canon.” That is NOT the book’s argument! Again, the argument is:

1. Pharisees & Protestants shared the EXACT same OT canon (source: Catholic Answers, also confirmed from other reliable & authoritative Catholic resources).
2. Jesus acknowledged the OT canon of the Pharisees (Luke 16:14,29).
3. Since Pharisees & Protestants had the exact same canon, by Jesus acknowledging the canon of the Pharisees, which was the same as later Protestants, He limited the OT to “their” canon, not the Deuteros too.

So, I respect the fact you wish to “pass,” but keep in mind the arguments made in the book (that you have chosen not to read) are not the arguments on the canon you used as a former Protestant (ie: the JEWS did not agree on the same canon). Again, you used an argument that has nothing to do with the book you are choosing to not read.

In the event that the Protestant OT canon really is the complete OT canon Jesus affirmed, and it can be demonstrated from simply reading the free section of the book, don’t you owe it to yourself at the very minimal to read it?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Apparently you quoted the Pitre/Bergsma book only when you thought it made your point; but when it was shown that it doesn’t, you revert back to the OP author as the ultimate authority of what YOU think can be verified historically.

Your interpretation of “history” appears to be driven by prejudice and animus toward the Catholic Church.

Since I am not making assumptions about what you “believe,” please do not make assumptions about what you “think” I believe (ie: i have “prejudice & animus towards the Catholic Church” or that the book in the OP is my “ultimate authority”). Neither is true. Please be respectful and avoid ad hominems despite our disagreement on this subject. I could say the same thing, but out of respect & Christian charity, if you notice I am not using that tactic.

And what I demonstrated, which can be verified by history - particularly CATHOLIC history - is:

1. Not all ECFs, including Doctors of the Church - including in the West - espoused to the EXACT same OT canon (such as St. Irenaeus in the second century).
2. Not all the members of the Council of Rome agreed on the same OT canon (like St. Jerome & Epipheneus of Salamis) - again, something verified by the Catholic Church.
3. St. Jerome did not include Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah in the Vulgate, as evidence by Baruch being missing in Codex Amiatinus (verified by Catholic Answers AND NewAdvent.org).

So, my “history” - as well as the book’s history in the OP - is LARGELY based on CATHOLIC history & resources. In fact, on the back cover of the book, it states out of over 600 resources used by the book, nearly 60% are from CATHOLIC resources, including the Vatican, not Protestant.

So, please kindly refrain from assumptions you have about people who disagree with, and instead base your comments on what is actually said, and respectfully ask questions you don’t have the answers to, rather than make unverified assumptions about others.

Thank you & God bless!

 

[Prodigal1984]

Here is a question though, how do we reconcile the fact that all of ancient Christianity accepts these books? It is not just limited to the RCC. The EO and the OO also include these texts.
In fact the largest canon in all of Christianity is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church with 81 books!
https://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Here is a question though, how do we reconcile the fact that all of ancient Christianity accepts these books? It is not just limited to the RCC. The EO and the OO also include these texts.
In fact the largest canon in all of Christianity is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church with 81 books!

Fair question! And I noticed this link is used in the book & addresses this question in the chapter covering the Eastern Orthodox Bible (and includes a discussion on the Ethiopian Bible too).

The argument from the book is that the version of the Septuagint used by Jesus & the NT writers not only did not include the Deuteros, but also did not include the “additional” books in EO & OO Bibles, as well as the Ethiopian Bibles. Evidence for this is just as certain terms to describe OT books, like “It is written,” “Have you not read?,” “the Law & the Prophets,” etc are never once used to describe the Deuteros, likewise, they are never used once to describe books in later versions of the Septuagint which were also “added” to the Septuagint, just as the Deuteros were “added” to the Septuagint. There is an interesting section in the book in the chapter on the Septuagint on what version of it the Pharisees used, which Jesus held them accountable for “reading,” when He asked them “Have you not read?” Jesus knew they would not have “read” from a version of the Septuagint that contained the Deuteros, or these other books, which are not found in Protestant OTs today, since Pharisees & Protestants shared the exact same canon.

But your argument is excellent for arguing if the Deuteros should be in the OT since they were in later versions of the Septuagint, then the Catholic OT should also included the books in EO & other non-Catholic OTs for the same reason, based on the same argument.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

And what I demonstrated, which can be verified by history - particularly CATHOLIC history - is:

1. Not all ECFs, including Doctors of the Church - including in the West - espoused to the EXACT same OT canon (such as St. Irenaeus in the second century).
2. Not all the members of the Council of Rome agreed on the same OT canon (like St. Jerome & Epipheneus of Salamis) - again, something verified by the Catholic Church.
3. St. Jerome did not include Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah in the Vulgate, as evidence by Baruch being missing in Codex Amiatinus (verified by Catholic Answers AND NewAdvent.org).

So, my “history” - as well as the book’s history in the OP - is LARGELY based on CATHOLIC history & resources. In fact, on the back cover of the book, it states out of over 600 resources used by the book, nearly 60% are from CATHOLIC resources, including the Vatican, not Protestant.

Catholics would have no problem with any of the above. My point has been that THE CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN CHURCH has always had the same canon since the Council of Rome.

1. Did some ECFs disagree with one another at one point or another? Yes. Did they accept the Church’s canon despite these temporary misgivings? Yes.
2. Did all members of the Council of Rome agree during the meeting? No. Did all members agree to the canon as promulgated by the Council of Rome despite these temporary misgivings? Yes.
3. Did St. Jerome leave out some books because he thought they did not belong in the Vulgate? Yes. Did he accept the canon as promulgated by the Council of Rome? Yes.

The point is, your facts do nothing for your argument! The FACT is, 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.) Using your logic, the first council of Jerusalem in Acts proves that since there was disagreement about circumcision and following the Law, we should probably consider the question unresolved, and continue debating this. I’m 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.

 

[Crusader13]

Very interesting topic thus far. I too have never heard of this author before, so I’m not familiar with his work either. I’ve tried to read every post to this point so I could piece together the arguments you’re making. Yet, I’m a little confused as to what the author’s overall goal is.

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?

 

[Crusader13]

What I said is that I believe Jesus said He was going to build a church, because that’s what He said in the NT. I just don’t believe the CATHOLIC Church is that same church Jesus was talking about.

I took your quote from the other thread, because I felt the discussion is better suited to be continued here and not on the thread about M. Voris.

So which Church was Jesus talking about?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Evidence for this is just as certain terms to describe OT books, like “It is written,” “Have you not read?,” “the Law & the Prophets,” etc are never once used to describe the Deuteros, likewise, they are never used once to describe books in later versions of the Septuagint which were also “added” to the Septuagint, just as the Deuteros were “added” to the Septuagint. There is an interesting section in the book in the chapter on the Septuagint on what version of it the Pharisees used, which Jesus held them accountable for “reading,” when He asked them “Have you not read?” Jesus knew they would not have “read” from a version of the Septuagint that contained the Deuteros, or these other books, which are not found in Protestant OTs today, since Pharisees & Protestants shared the exact same canon.

Please produce a quote FROM JESUS saying “have you not read” or “It is written” from ALL the books of the Protestant OT Bible. Otherwise if it is just a small subset of your Protestant OT, (which it is) then what have your proved? That Protestants have added books to the OT too?

The fact that “Deuteros” are not in that group is hardly a convincing argument AGAINST the deuteros or FOR a pretended canon, it is just that there are really very few books Jesus specifically said “have you not read” or “It is written” in reference to. Notice that when JESUS does use this expression, he is usually quoting from books relating to King David; viz. Psalms, Books of Kings, the Law: viz. Torah, or to Himself: viz. Isaiah and a couple other prophets (but certainly not all of them that are found in the Protestant canon.)

Unless you can produce these explicit texts.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

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

https://formed.org/watch/5b16b6756f...fLeWt7HL7btReu_mLmB8oGozf4nXNNSxF-Hy-n7vsSi7E

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So which Church was Jesus talking about?

Well, since this thread is about the OT canon, not the definition of “the church,” does it really belong here either? I only posted my comment about Michael Voris, because of his comment about the OT canon ending with Malachi, which he said was the last OT book in terms of Jewish history before the events of John the Baptist, which introduced the NT canon. So, it seems to be more relevant there, than here.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Catholics would have no problem with any of the above. My point has been that THE CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN CHURCH has always had the same canon since the Council of Rome.

Historically, this is not true. Even the fourth century councils didn’t have the exact same OT canon. None of them included Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah. Carthage of 397 omitted the book of Revelation, which was “added” back later at Carthage of 419. The Codex Amiatinus (AD 700) omitted Baruch, which wasn’t added to the Vulgate until the ninth century. This means the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 787 did not have it either, which conflicts with the later Ecumenical Councils of Florence & Trent. Plus, the additions of 1/3 Esdras were not included in Trent, which were included in the fourth century councils.

Did some ECFs disagree with one another at one point or another? Yes. Did they accept the Church’s canon despite these temporary misgivings? Yes.

That’s not the point, which was to demonstrate we can’t go back to the ECFs, since they disagreed with each other on the OT canon, which wasn’t defined until Trent.

Did all members of the Council of Rome agree during the meeting? No. Did all members agree to the canon as promulgated by the Council of Rome despite these temporary misgivings? Yes

Again, the Council of Rome omitted Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, and included the additions to 1/3 Esdras, which were included in the later Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which were omitted in the Ecumenical Council of Trent. The point being, we cannot rely on councils, including ecumenical councils, since they conflict with each other too.

Did St. Jerome leave out some books because he thought they did not belong in the Vulgate? Yes. Did he accept the canon as promulgated by the Council of Rome? Yes.

St. Jerome omitted Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, just as Rome did, as well as including the additions to 1/3 Esdras, just as Rome did, which was different than the canon at Trent. This is why even St. Jerome’s Vulgate cannot be used, since it is not the same canon as the Catholic canon today.

[cont]