Why were books taken out of the Bible?

[CEM5]

Are you saying the Jewish canon of today contains material that is not in the Protestant OT? If so, I don’t believe that’s accurate.

The Protestants, in their ignorance, took the altered Jewish Hebrew Bible, and incorporated it into their own, thus discarding the canon established by Christ’s Church.

Remember that the translation of the Septuagint was in progress well before Jesus was even born. Also remember where it happened- it was largely completed in Greece and other Greek-speaking parts of the world. This process was nearly complete by the time Revelation was written.

The translation of the Septuagint was completed 250/100 BC. King Ptolemy of Alexandria (Egypt) commissioned JEWISH scholars to translate the Hebrew into the Greek language since the vernacular language was Greek and that is why the Jews that spoke Greek were Hellenistic Jews. It is the LXX that was used by Jews and from which Jesus read from and the New Testament quotes from. It was completely translated way before Revelation was written. Your “facts” are lacking.

There really isn’t any evidence that Peter had any kind of “last-say” authority over the entire Church during his lifetime, and tangential evidence suggests that he didn’t even have universal jurisdiction over Rome, where Christianity was still quite illegal and largely practiced outside the city walls. The assertion that Linus actually succeeded Peter is another one that’s insufficiently supported by historical evidence, and to a certain extent, it’s something that you are (at least for now) being asked to take on faith. But you can’t realistically expect me to do the same.

Who was it in Acts that spoke up to choose another Apostle to replace Judas? Peter. Who was it that Jesus gave the Keys to the kingdom? (this is given to the King’s Royal Steward and when the king is away or too busy, it is the Royal Steward who runs the kingdom and open and closes the gates to the kingdom and the royal treasury). Jesus gave those keys to Peter, and they are passed in succession to the next Royal Steward. That is our Pope(s). [Pope] Linus is mentioned by Paul in 2 Timothy 4:21, and history records that this Linus succeeded Peter. Again, your facts are lacking.

We do agree that the Holy Spirit guides His Church, but we don’t agree that He protected the ECF’s from error when determining the canon of the NT. I do believe they got it right with God’s help, but He was not protecting them from error- nor did those men or any of their contemporaries believe He was. Additionally, it wasn’t until Trent that the entire canon of Scripture (and the OT in particular) was officially set in stone by the CC. There had been an agreed-upon NT canon for many centuries by that time, and Trent was more of an affirmation of the deuterocanonicals against what non-Catholics were using in the West. However, there wasn’t an official OT canon prior to the Schism or prior to Trent.

You can disagree all you want, and by doing so, you in effect call Jesus a liar. He promised to be with His Church ALWAYS, and it is the Church built upon the foundation of Peter and the Apostles. Those who were taught by and ordained by those same Aposltes are the Apostolc Fathers, and in succession, the Early Church Fathers. The letters written by the Apostles and their scribes (Matthew scribed for Peter), are the contents of the New Testament, and were already being circulated and read during Mass. (Or what they called “Breaking of Bread”). The Canon of the Bible was set in 367 AD and officially promulgate in 417 AD at the 2nd council of Carthage by Pope Boniface. Because the Protestants changed the Bible, our Pope (at the council of Trent) AFFIRMED as DOCTRINE, the canon of the Bible. It is the Protestants who changed God’s Holy Word.

Sure, everyone in the West was using the Latin Vulgate. But what do you think the rest of the Catholic Church was using at the time? How about in Greece? I’ll bet they were using…the Septuagint, which was in Greek, and the New Testament, which was also in Greek. Makes sense when you’re in Greece, right?.

The Catholic Church always provided the vernacular language to the peoples whose land they spread the Good News. In many cases, it is the Church who gave those people a written language. And in Greece they didn’t just use the Septuagint (that is the Old Testament), they used KOINE Greek bibles. Over the years the Greek language is no longer the same, just as English is no longer the same. Try readin Old English!!

to be continued…

 

[CEM5]

continued…

And how many books do you suppose the Greeks included in their Septuagint? Well…since they are the ones who gave you the Septuagint, it does seem a little cheeky to call them “their” Septuagints. It might be more appropriate to call it “The Septuagint,” which Jerome (against the advice of Augustine) actually did not use to create the Latin OT translation, though seven of the ten “things that are read” were included. But why only seven? And why not Psalm 151? The question remains, and there isn’t a really good answer.

Ummm…the Greeks didn’t give us the Seputagint. King Ptolemy of Egypt had JEWISH scholars tranlsate (very carefully) from Hebrew to Koine Greek - since the Jews no longer spoke Hebrew. And again, your facts are incorrect: Jerome used the original manuscripts (now disintegrated) to translate into the now common spoken language of Latin. See, Greek was no longer the common language: Latin was. At first Jerome felt he was to use the Hebrew canon for the Old Testament (which the Jews changed starting around 100 AD and not completed for centuries), but he was cautioned not to since he wasn’t to change the canon of the Scriptures for he had no authority. See, Christ’s Holy Spirit ensured that the canon of Scripture would NOT be changed and left intact! Just as we still have today. The Church gave the world the complete Word of God in the Bible (Old and New) - no one else!! And she safeguards it always against heresies.

blessings,
CEM

 

[campeador]

Excerpt from The Canon of Scripture and Salvation (links added by me):

A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied - honoring Saint Exuperius - with a letter listing the canonical books:
*
Consulenti Tibi* Dated February 405 A.D.

This list is the same as the canonical list that Catholics have today. This includes the Protestant apocrypha or Catholic deuterocanonical books of the Holy Bible.

 

[campeador]

Pope Damasus I

Pope Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. Pope Damasus I is often considered to be the father of the modern Catholic canon. Purporting to date from a “Council of Rome” under Pope Damasus I in 382, the so-called “Damasian list” appended to the pseudepigraphical Decretum Gelasianum gives a list identical to what would be the Canon of Trent, and, though the text may in fact not be Damasian, it is at least a valuable sixth century compilation.

This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.
​

​

wiki link

 

[KathleenGee]

The Council of Trent reaffirmed the books as canon…

The bottom line was if the divinely inspired book was for support of the universal faith that nurtured the basic human condition of mankind in all time, or those books considered divinely inspired but for private revelation, or those books simply not divinely inspired and not used.

 

[Roy5]

A few points, some already mentioned.

1. The Protestant Old Testament, whether right or wrong, is the same one you found at your neighborhood synagogue.
2. You will find the ‘Old Testament Apocrypha’ in many large Protestant Bibles. These books are included between the Old and New Testaments.
3. Many Protestant churches will read from the Apocrypha. For example, segments from Judith 16, Ecclesiasticus 17 and 44, and the Wisdom of Solomon are commonly used.
4. Many Catholic scholars, including St. Jerome, opposed certain ‘additions’ that are found in the Catholic version of scripture.
   5. It seems to me that this need not be an issue between Catholics and Protestants. It is typical of hammers used to prove that ‘our tribe’ is right, yours is wrong. This whole attitude is abusive and not in the spirit of Christ. There are strong arguments for both viewpoints. Re-read the Sermon on the Mount for more on this subject.

6. There are, of course, various New Testament Apocryphal books, also, that are omitted from the New Testament. However, various traditions that are widespread, especially within the Catholic and Orthodox churches, are taken from these books.In recent years some of them - e. g., the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel According to Mary - have received more attention among some scholars.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Old Hebrew versions precede Jesus Christ.

The foundation of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. The study of hermeneutics is about how the Holy Spirit after Pentecost revealed that which was hidden or lacked fulfillment in the Old Testament readings.

Jesus Christ began His Church at Pentecost when His Holy Spirit descended now upon the Apostles. Previous to that the Holy Spirit came down over Christ as a dove at the baptism of Christ beginning His ministry.

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire, not only over the Apostles, but also over Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and over a hundred plus other followers there in the Upper Room, the ‘charter members’ if you want to use the term, as those beginning the Church. The tongues of fire burned away their fear and strengthened them and confirmed them in Christ to go out and preach the Good News.

Mary and the other followers were also disciples of Christ, and served the Apostles in the ways evident of those helping churches in earliest times. It is assumed that Mary was the Apostles’ great advisor who taught them many intimate things about Jesus and His way.

The Books the apostolic and universal Church chose were those that were designated for public revelation that would affirm and support and nourish the universal faith, reflected in Christ’s death and resurrection, that would break the bondage not only of death but of linear time…the Books chosen were to nurture the spirit of all men, past, present and future.

The Jews who remained in Israel spoke Hebrew. The Jews who survived the Diaspora, many of them had converted to Christ. Those who were dispersed acquired Greek as their tongue of use, and in those times, Greek was the universal language.

At every Mass, we are witness to the faith of the Jewish people; their faith witness, although thousands of years old in some parts, becomes alive and a testimony to us so that we can join them as companions in faith, learn from them and share with them that Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Though there are arguments pro and con, both Jose O’Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede assert that fragment 7Q5 (discovered in Qumran Cave 7) is from Mark 6:52-53. If the assertion is true, that would make this the earliest known fragment of the New Testament.

At least according to Wikipedia, these arguments have been “virtually universally rejected.” (Personally, all I can make it is “kai” which isn’t much to go on.) Pro or con, I don’t think it’s a good idea to be asserting this as a fact, especially if it’s the opinion of a small minority of scholars.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Jews who remained in Israel spoke Hebrew. The Jews who survived the Diaspora, many of them had converted to Christ. Those who were dispersed acquired Greek as their tongue of use, and in those times, Greek was the universal language.

Actually in about 500 BC Aramaic became the lingua franca of the Ancient Near East. Until the Arab Conquest, about half of the world’s Christians used Syriac (an Aramaic dialect) for liturgy and scripture. Only the very highly educated would have known Greek.

 

[Nicea325]

A few points, some already mentioned.

1. The Protestant Old Testament, whether right or wrong, is the same one you found at your neighborhood synagogue.
2. You will find the ‘Old Testament Apocrypha’ in many large Protestant Bibles. These books are included between the Old and New Testaments.
3. Many Protestant churches will read from the Apocrypha. For example, segments from Judith 16, Ecclesiasticus 17 and 44, and the Wisdom of Solomon are commonly used.
4. Many Catholic scholars, including St. Jerome, opposed certain ‘additions’ that are found in the Catholic version of scripture.
   5. It seems to me that this need not be an issue between Catholics and Protestants. It is typical of hammers used to prove that ‘our tribe’ is right, yours is wrong. This whole attitude is abusive and not in the spirit of Christ. There are strong arguments for both viewpoints. Re-read the Sermon on the Mount for more on this subject.

6. There are, of course, various New Testament Apocryphal books, also, that are omitted from the New Testament. However, various traditions that are widespread, especially within the Catholic and Orthodox churches, are taken from these books.In recent years some of them - e. g., the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel According to Mary - have received more attention among some scholars.

1. Yes Protestants abide to the Jewish OT canon.The same Jews who rejected the Messiah and the the Greek OT used by the early church (My NIV & NKJV confirm the Greek OT used by the early church).
2. Many Protestants always use Jerome as “proof” against the 7 books. However,many fail acknowledge he forfeit his own will for the church who was promised the HS. Any ECF could have given his view or opinion,but that does not him correct.

 

[JonNC]

1. Yes Protestants abide to the Jewish OT canon.The same Jews who rejected the Messiah and the the Greek OT used by the early church (My NIV & NKJV confirm the Greek OT used by the early church).
2. Many Protestants always use Jerome as “proof” against the 7 books. However,many fail acknowledge he forfeit his own will for the church who was promised the HS. Any ECF could have given his view or opinion,but that does not him correct.

YES! And Catholics up until Trent could express their views or opinions regarding the canon! And this includes men like Cardinal Cajetan and Martin Luther!!!
I suspect that some protestants do use St. Jerome as proof in this way. It seems to me it is more appropriate to site him as evidence that the historic Church had doubts and indeed disputes regarding the canonicity of the deuterocanon, and well as other books, whose canonicity are accepted in Orthodoxy. The same is true with Eusebius and the antilegomena.

Frankly, the whole argument of “who took books out” and “who added books to” seems besides the point. The fact is, throughout the history of the Church, their have been books universally accepted, and books in dispute.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

YES! And Catholics up until Trent could express their views or opinions regarding the canon! And this includes men like Cardinal Cajetan and Martin Luther!!!
I suspect that some protestants do use St. Jerome as proof in this way. It seems to me it is more appropriate to site him as evidence that the historic Church had doubts and indeed disputes regarding the canonicity of the deuterocanon, and well as other books, whose canonicity are accepted in Orthodoxy. The same is true with Eusebius and the antilegomena.

Frankly, the whole argument of “who took books out” and “who added books to” seems besides the point. The fact is, throughout the history of the Church, their have been books universally accepted, and books in dispute.

Jon

Blessings Jon. Indeed I understand your position and very true. However, despite what opinions one may have expressed,once the church declared/ratified a doctrine (Trinity,Incarnation,canon,etc,etc) makes no difference. Either one accepts it or rejects it-well that is my perspective. Care to add?

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

Blessings Jon. Indeed I understand your position and very true. However, despite what opinions one may have expressed,once the church declared/ratified a doctrine (Trinity,Incarnation,canon,etc,etc) makes no difference. Either one accepts it or rejects it-well that is my perspective. Care to add?

God Bless

Its always good to converse with you.

In terms of the Catholic Church, the issue was resolved at Trent. Every Catholic should take the position of the canon as described there. So, I agree, once Rome makes its determination, good Catholics are obliged to accept that position.

For Lutherans, the canon is not specifically listed in our confessions. So, technically, the canon remains open, though it is generally accepted that the deuterocanon is not quite at the level of canon.

Jon

 

[onenow1]

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”
Amic. Discussion, 1, 127.home.inreach.com/bstanley/luther.htm

Luther may have had a lot of good points, the fact remains he is the initiator of removing these books.
Later on the cost of printing in 18th or 19th century was instrumental if I recall correctly.

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

Its always good to converse with you.

In terms of the Catholic Church, the issue was resolved at Trent. Every Catholic should take the position of the canon as described there. So, I agree, once Rome makes its determination, good Catholics are obliged to accept that position.

For Lutherans, the canon is not specifically listed in our confessions. So, technically, the canon remains open, though it is generally accepted that the deuterocanon is not quite at the level of canon.

Jon

Likewise Jon. As a Lutheran faithful,what is your take on the deuterocanon? Would you like the Lutheran Church as a whole to include them or does it hold no bearing? What is the overall consensus-if you know?

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

=onenow1;7436839]“If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”
Amic. Discussion, 1, 127.home.inreach.com/bstanley/luther.htm

I’m not sure what this partial quote from Luther’s letter on translation has to do with the current discussion.

Luther may have had a lot of good points, the fact remains he is the initiator of removing these books.

Only if one considers Luther’s practicing the right of all Catholics to dispute and question the deuterocanon prior to Trent differently than others who practiced the same right.

Later on the cost of printing in 18th or 19th century was instrumental if I recall correctly.

This is true, and a good point, and in my opinion a sorry excuse not to include them.

God Bless

And His blessing also with you,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Likewise Jon. As a Lutheran faithful,what is your take on the deuterocanon? Would you like the Lutheran Church as a whole to include them or does it hold no bearing? What is the overall consensus-if you know?

God Bless

I certainly think they should be included, much as Luther did. As they are part of the writings of the historic Church Catholic, I think they are quite important.
As for concensus, I’m not sure. My sense is they are highly regarded by some Lutheran theologians, less so by others, but I’ve never gotten the feeling they are disregarded entirely. It may also depend on what synod or country one is in. American Lutheranism has been, I think, influenced by Protestantism such that at the congregational level the issue seems irrelevent to those in the pews.

Jon

 

[onenow1]

I’m not sure what this partial quote from Luther’s letter on translation has to do with the current discussion.

A question has been asked, that may help the OP, understand and seek more truths…

Only if one considers Luther’s practicing the right of all Catholics to dispute and question the deuterocanon prior to Trent differently than others who practiced the same right.

Catholics then and Catholics now can dispute,BUT ! there is a Creed Martin should have obeyed as all Catholics should, unfortunately, a lot of people then and now,subscribe to Martins type of arogance . The CC is not a democracy never was. It all boils down to authority NC but you knew that.

This is true, and a good point, and in my opinion a sorry excuse not to include them.

Peace

 

[KathleenGee]

The Jews who lived outside of Israel acquired the use of Greek…and the Church draws on the Greek translation…This perspective is more international…more universal.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Jews who lived outside of Israel acquired the use of Greek…and the Church draws on the Greek translation…This perspective is more international…more universal.

Just wanted to point out that there were also a large number of Jews living outside the Roman Empire (perhaps more than inside the Roman Empire) that would not have known Greek. These Jews relied on Targumim—the Hebrew Bible translated into Aramaic.