The difference between the canon for the bible between Catholics and Protestants?

[Hishandmaiden]

What is the basis for the difference in the canon and why is there a difference in the canon?

I am currently studying a module in my university on bible and christianity, and it will be useful to hear inputs from my brothers and sisters in the Lord and who are into this kind of things.

[E.C.]

I think some part of it may have to do with the Deutorocanonical books of the Old Testament also known as the "Apocrypha".

[Hishandmaiden]

Anyone with information from way down to the old church history?

[PaulAckermann]

At the time of Jesus, there were two Old Testament scriptures – the Maseritic Text and the Greek Septuagint. The Maseritic Text as written in Hebrew. The Greek Septuagint was written in Greek. The one that Jesus and the apostles used was the Greek Septuagint. The Maseritic Text did not include the deuter-canonicals. The Greek Septuagint did.

Some time after Christ, the Jewish leaders met at the Jamnia Council rejected the Greek Septuagint. A big reason they rejected it was Isaiah 7:14. The Masoretic Text translated it “a young woman shall bear a child”. The Greek Septuagint translated it as “a virgin shall bear a child”, making it a prediction of the virgin birth of Christ. By the Jews rejecting the Greek Septuagint, they took away a big argument that Christians had for Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. But Christians continued to use the Greek Septuagint as their basis for the Old Testament.

Christians for the first 1500 years used the Old Testament based on the Greek Septugaint, which included the deutero-canonicals. Then the Reformation happened. Two major themes of the Reformation was 1) there is no purgatory, and 2) man had no free will, he is saved only by the predetermined will of God.

But there were two verses in the Bible that went against this. One was in 1 Maccabees, in which the Israelites offered sacrifices to God for people who are already dead. Another verse was found in Sirach, in which this book clearly taught that we have a free will. Luther and the other Reformers explained away these verse by arguing that these books are in the deutero-canonicals, and that this is only in the Greek Septugint, which was rejected by the Jews. The Reformers argued that we should use the same OT scriptures that the Jews used. Since they rejected the Greek Septuagint, so should we. What they forgot to mention was that the Jews did not reject the Greek Septuagint until AFTER the time of Christ, not before.

So the Greek Septugint was rejected because it did not fit people’s theology. The Jews did not like how it translated Isaiah 7:14, and so there rejected it. The Protestants rejected it because it taught the existence of purgatory and that we have a free will. The Jews rejected the Greek Septuagint for being too Christian. The Protetants rejected it for being too Catholic.

But Jesus and the apostles used the Greek Septuagint whenever they quoted from OT scripture. And for the first 1500 years, all Christians used the OT which was based on the Greek Septuagint, which included the deutero-canonicals.


BTW, Catholics are also Christians.

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

What is the basis for the difference in the canon and why is there a difference in the canon? .

Ok, first, Catholics are Christians, in fact the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church in Western Europe until the 16th century. As to the other, the Old Testament is of the Catholic Church is the Septuagent Scriptures which were used in Palastine at the time of Christ. As for the New Testament Canon, it is the Catholic Church which protected and propagated the Sacred Scriptures from the first to the 16th Century. So the Protestants got the Bible from the Catholic Church.

Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 393: Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture." (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 397: Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical " (canon 47 A.D. 397).

[Hishandmaiden]

Thanks for your help.
I know Catholics are christians.
What I mean is, the difference between protestants and catholics' canon of the bible.

In Singapore, we usually call Catholics Catholic and we don't call protestants protestant, but we call protestant christian.

Hope it clears up the misunderstanding. :)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

ALL Christians accept 39 OT books (not always grouped so as to make 39 - but it's the same material). And ALL Christians accept the 27 NT books (although not always considered equally). And they have for 1600-1900 years. It may well be the strongest and most ecumenical point of agreement in all of Christiandom.

There are some books, most thought to be written between 400 BC and the birth of Christ) that are without an ecumenical consensus. Some Oriental Orthodox churches embrace some but not others, the Eastern Orthodox Church embraces some but not others, in the 16th Century, the Roman Catholic Church embraced some but not others - they all have their own unique sets of accepted and nonaccepted books, with no ecumenical consensus among them regarding them.

Some Protestants leave the issue as unresolved. Until very recently, Protestants including some of them (usually the Catholic set) in their tomes but often did not regard them - dogmatically - as Scriptures. Some Protestants even included readings from these disputed books in their lectionaries. For most Protestants, that's where it stands - unlike the 66 we ALL agree on and have for 1600 to 1900 years, there are some without that consensus. It's left an unresolved issue.



I hope that helps.


Pax!


- Josiah

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Thanks for your help.
I know Catholics are christians.
What I mean is, the difference between protestants and catholics' canon of the bible.

What is the basis for the difference in the canon and why is there a difference in the canon? .

The Old Testament used by the Catholic Church is the Septuagent Scriptures which were used in Palastine at the time of Christ. As far as the New Testament Canon is concerned, the Protestant Churches use the Canon of the New Testament as declared by Pope Damasus as shown below, so there is no difference in that regard.

The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 393: Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture." (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I...

AD 397: Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical " (canon 47 A.D. 397).

I hope this answers your question.

Grace and peace to you.

Your brother in Christ

[Hishandmaiden]

Thanks for all your help! :)

[MrPolo]

I recommend the book Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta for an exhaustive history of the 7 books in question.

[mont974x4]

http://www.ariel.org/qa.htm

Why don't we accept the Apocrypha? I think perhaps that we Protestants left something out of the Bible.
http://www.ariel.org/qaa.jpgConcerning the books of the Apocrypha, they were never accepted by the Jewish community, nor by the Church at large, as being inspired. Only later in history did the Catholic Church make them part of the canon, because it helped support the church's doctrine of purgatory. But it was never part of those Scriptures accepted either by Jews or by the larger believing Church.
Keep in mind that the books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet the New Testament never categorized the books of the Apocrypha as "Scripture." When the New Testament talks about Scripture, it only deals with the same three-fold division as found in the Hebrew Bible: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The rabbis never quote from the Apocrypha as divine authority. Moreover, neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles ever quote the Apocrypha as divine authority. In fact, what was considered "Scripture" clearly excluded the Apocrypha from the perspective of both the Jewish community and the Messianic community of the New Testament. While the early Jewish believers saw the writings of the Apostles as "Scripture," and the Old Testament as "Scripture," the Apocrypha was never accepted as such.
Furthermore, the Apocrypha makes a lot of contradictory statements and it does not hold up to the historical, archeological, and harmonious scrutiny as do the other books of the Bible. It is not true that "we Protestants left something out." It is only that the Catholic Church included it, and rather late in the game at that. The Apocrypha, like Josephus and the writings of the Church fathers, is valuable for historical reference and historical backgrounds to the events in Scripture. It includes, of course, the Books of Maccabees – historical but not inspired books that record many of the events that brought about the Feast of Chanukah. But, again, the Apocrypha is no more inspired than Josephus or the Church fathers.

[plmarquette]

all the common language bibles ( wylcliff, tyndale, coverdale, cromwell, great bible, bishops bible, etc.) written after the vulgate contained the same 72 books as the present NAB (DR) catholic bible, but they were located between Malachi and Matthew ; until the reformation and the writint of the king James version, when the 7 books were removed from the protestant canon - now 66 , and remain in the catholic bible still 72

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
http://answers.org/bible/canonicity.html

http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html

http://www.bibleteachings.org/s2books.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html

[PioMagnus]

Moreover, neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles ever quote the Apocrypha as divine authority.

This is a pretty poor argument for a number of reasons:
1. We don't know whether Jesus quoted or alluded to these books as not everything Jesus said or did was recorded in the scriptures (Jn 21:25)
2. If this is a requirement for Canonical inclusion, we need quotes from every OT book. Which we don't have...think of Song of Solomon (songs), Ruth, etc.
3. Allusion doesn't equal canonicity, Hebrews refers to the dispute over the body of Moses between Satan and St. Michael the Archangel, which is from the non-inspired book of Assumption of Moses

4. There have been large lists compiled of NT quotes and allusions from the deutero-canon such as this, from scripturecatholic.com:
Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.


Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.


Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.


Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.


Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.


Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.


Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.


Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.


Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.


Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.


Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.


Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.


Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.


Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.


Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.


Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.


Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

and many many more, just from this one source, which I didn't include because of the sheer size of it.



So, to summarize...Bad premise, false conclusion, and even if it were a legitimate argument, the Deuterocanon IS quoted in the NT.



PioMagnus

[BigNorsk]

What you should have noticed by now is there are a lot of versions of the history of the canon.

I take it mostly as a tale of bibles.

For instance the Orthodox and Catholics both support the Apochryphal books, but even there, they aren't exactly the same.

For the Orthodox, you turn to the Septuagint for the answer. As you noticed in the thread, the Orthodox point to the use of the Septuagint in the New Testament. It's true, the Septuagint was used. However, it wasn't used exclusively, some New Testament quotes come from other versions than the Septuagint, and since the Orthodox continued right up to present to use the Septuagint as their Old Testament translation, you can see some of the quotes became more in agreement over time.

Anyway, the basic assumption is that the Septuagint in Jesus' time was like it is today and contained all the books and received the approval of Jesus as scripture. It's really quite a stretch and indeed as time goes on it's less supportable all the time.

It seems that the rational must have really become kind of a folk theory of scripture. We see for instance the Bishop of Constantinople, Athanasius, mentions what is and isn't scripture in his one letter (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html). He is quite adamant that the Jewish Old Testament is scripture and the Apochryphal books are not. He made one mistake, he didn't include Esther as scripture and inserted one of the Apochyrphal books in it's place, probably because he knew the correct number. Evidently he didn't go down to the local synagog to check.

In any case though, 2000 years of use of the Septuagint by the Orthodox pretty well assurred everything in it being considered scripture.

In the Catholic church, it's the tale of the Vulgate. Jerome translated the Vulgate. He started translating in 382 with a revision of the Gospels, finishing the Old Testament in 405. He too was adamant that the Jewish canon was the whole of Old Testament scripture. He states so in his prefaces (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.i.html)to the books. ( See the preface to Samuel and the Kings, as well as the prefaces of Tobit and Judith.) The Pope requested him to translate the Apochryphal books as well. He did some, but didn't do a very good job, many of the Apochryphal books are just taken from the Old Latin translations. The books don't quite match all the books in the Septuagint.

Those who say the canon was set in the late fourth century as the same as Catholics state today, seem to just ignore the fact that the person who translated their bible just a few years later seems completely unaware that the canon was set. The lists from that time are really kind of suspect and it just seems to difficult to grasp why Jerome seems so completely unaware of and indeed speaks what would be in direct contradiction to any set canon. Jerome used the term apochrpha for the noncanonical books.

Anyway, a little over a thousand years later in the Council of Trent, in a seriously split vote, the canon of the Catholic Church was set, and they did exactly what most Orthodox do, every book in their bible was considered scripture. Interesting isn't it that the protestants agree with Jerome and the Catholics who use his translation as the basis of the canon disagree with him?

When you study the early church fathers, there is really overwhelming support for the Jewish canon early, say before 400 A.D. The council of Jarnia story though appears not to be true. That was based on one man's hypothesis and is pretty well discredited now. It appears that Jarnia probably didn't even discuss canon much if at all and the canon was set before then, possibly long before then.'

Marv

[plainswolf]

http://www.ariel.org/qaa.jpgConcerning the books of the Apocrypha, they were never accepted by the Jewish community, nor by the Church at large, as being inspired. Only later in history did the Catholic Church make them part of the canon, because it helped support the church's doctrine of purgatory. But it was never part of those Scriptures accepted either by Jews or by the larger believing Church.

It is only that the Catholic Church included it, and rather late in the game at that. ....

the Apocrypha is no more inspired than Josephus or the Church fathers.

On the contrary, by the late 4th century the Church had decided which were inspired books of the old Canon.. in the 16th century she merely defined as dogma what she had decided and always believed since the 4th.

The same authority that decided which writings were to comprise the Christian canon of the Old testament in the 4th century also decided which writings, out of the hundreds of Christian writings, were to comprise the 27 books of the New Testament in the same 4th century. The canon of both the Old and New Testament was decided by the Council of Carthage in 397 a.d.




+Mark

[plmarquette]

What is the basis for the difference in the canon and why is there a difference in the canon?

I am currently studying a module in my university on bible and christianity, and it will be useful to hear inputs from my brothers and sisters in the Lord and who are into this kind of things.
the puritans thought that the 7 text supported some catholic doctrine that they disagreed with , and persuaded king james to leave them out ...1,2 macabees, judith, tobit, sirach, baruch, wisdom

in all other protestant versions they were there , between malachi and matthew ... showing the macabean revolt-defeat by rome, the rise of the pharisees and saducees, ....

if you pick up a douy-rheims , nab bible , look at the notes , some of the "apocrypha or deuterocanoconicals" are referenced to canoconical (protestant texts)

the question of the pharisees to jesus of a woman who was married to 7 men , who would she be married to in heaven, came from the book of tobit

[rockytrails]

The first use of the word protestant was by the pope refering to Dr Luther
so what do Lutherans believe about the canon.

Only Jesus can canonize THE BOOKS of the bible that are Gods word.
the papal canonization of other books is not the reed or rule of faith .

The canonization of the bible
essay from wisconsin lutheran syminary

http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/G/GeigerCanon/GeigerCanon.PDF

[Catholic Christian]

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha." Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

During the Reformation, for largely doctrinal reasons Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and parts of two others (Daniel and Esther), even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history. As Protestant Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53).

I suggest you read "DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS" and read what James Akin has written at this link:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm

[BigNorsk]

the puritans thought that the 7 text supported some catholic doctrine that they disagreed with , and persuaded king james to leave them out ...1,2 macabees, judith, tobit, sirach, baruch, wisdom



Not historically correct, the KJV had the entire Apochrypha in a section so entitled. Later printers left them out entirely. Interestingly, the Protestant Apochrypha is all the books in the Vulgate. The Catholics said all the books in the Vulgate were scripture but when the Council of Trent then listed them, they, evidently by mistake, missed three. So the KJV had 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, which is missing from the Catholic canon, even though a part of the Vulgate, which they use as their norm for what is and what isn't scripture.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.
In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."
Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).



The reformers followed the early church. For instance the reformers did exactly follow Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic church claimed Jerome and the Vulgate as their authority but actually rejected Jerome.

The word apochrypha was used by Jerome in the prefaces in the Latin Vulgate. Furter back it seems to come from the usage in 2 Esdras of the seventy hidden books.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.html (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.html) is a book available online that gives the overwhelming evidence in support of the Protestant canon including support from the early fathers, many of whom supported that there were only 22 Old Testament books. There is no early support for the number of books there would be from taking the Jewish scriptures and adding the Apochyrpha, none.

And the theology of the Apochyrpha is not compatible with biblical theology. For instance the Apochrypha teaches that idolatry is not a mortal sin. The bible does teach that it is impossible to be united with God and false gods, that no idolater will see heaven. That's just one example. Burning fish organs to exorcise demons another.

Marv

[Technocrat2010]

The reformers followed the early church. For instance the reformers did exactly follow Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic church claimed Jerome and the Vulgate as their authority but actually rejected Jerome.


Actually, Jerome considered the deuterocanonicals inspired. He just didn't consider them canonical. With him being from Constantinople, that's perfectly understandable.

He used the deuterocanonicals extensively and considered them just as inspired as the rest of the Bible. He just didn't think they should be included in the Constantinople liturgical canon for liturgical purposes.


The word apochrypha was used by Jerome in the prefaces in the Latin Vulgate. Furter back it seems to come from the usage in 2 Esdras of the seventy hidden books.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.html (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/canon.html) is a book available online that gives the overwhelming evidence in support of the Protestant canon including support from the early fathers, many of whom supported that there were only 22 Old Testament books. There is no early support for the number of books there would be from taking the Jewish scriptures and adding the Apochyrpha, none.


http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html


And the theology of the Apochyrpha is not compatible with biblical theology. For instance the Apochrypha teaches that idolatry is not a mortal sin. The bible does teach that it is impossible to be united with God and false gods, that no idolater will see heaven. That's just one example. Burning fish organs to exorcise demons another.
Marv

Please demonstrate all of the above.

[mont974x4]

This is a pretty poor argument for a number of reasons:
1. We don't know whether Jesus quoted or alluded to these books as not everything Jesus said or did was recorded in the scriptures (Jn 21:25)
2. If this is a requirement for Canonical inclusion, we need quotes from every OT book. Which we don't have...think of Song of Solomon (songs), Ruth, etc.
3. Allusion doesn't equal canonicity, Hebrews refers to the dispute over the body of Moses between Satan and St. Michael the Archangel, which is from the non-inspired book of Assumption of Moses

4. There have been large lists compiled of NT quotes and allusions from the deutero-canon such as this, from scripturecatholic.com:
and many many more, just from this one source, which I didn't include because of the sheer size of it.



So, to summarize...Bad premise, false conclusion, and even if it were a legitimate argument, the Deuterocanon IS quoted in the NT.



PioMagnus

[COLOR=Black]
They did not quote them as divine authority.


I'm sure you'll understand my believing a Rabbi over the popes.

[Technocrat2010]

I'm sure you'll understand my believing a Rabbi over the popes.
Those same Rabbis that discredited the deuterocanonicals in the council of Jamnia also discredited the NT Gospels as heresy. If you take them for their word on the deuterocanonicals, why not do the same for the gospels? Why the inconsistency? ;)

[mont974x4]

Those same Rabbis that discredited the deuterocanonicals in the council of Jamnia also discredited the NT Gospels as heresy. If you take them for their word on the deuterocanonicals, why not do the same for the gospels? Why the inconsistency? ;)
Because you are wrong. The Rabbi that I quoted is a believer and accepts Christ as Messiah.


Besides, there is continuity and no contradictions in the Bible I use....but yours has issues.

[Catholic Christian]

I strongly suggest you all read this link for the Catholic viewpoint:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm)

Also, you should read this online booklet, "Where We Got The Bible":
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html (http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html)

[Technocrat2010]

Because you are wrong. The Rabbi that I quoted is a believer and accepts Christ as Messiah.


Besides, there is continuity and no contradictions in the Bible I use....but yours has issues.

Which Rabbi, may I ask? And did ALL of the Rabbis at the time who accepted the findings of the council also accept Christ?

[Catholic Christian]

Because you are wrong. The Rabbi that I quoted is a believer and accepts Christ as Messiah. Besides, there is continuity and no contradictions in the Bible I use....but yours has issues.
You know whats funny about that? Non-Christians will point towards "contradictions" in the Bible when they try to disprove it, and you would probably tell them that there is no contradiction, but rather they have simply misread the scriptures. (And you'd be right.)

But you turn around and use the same flawed approach toward the Deuterocanonicals. And I say to you what you would say to those who say the Bible has problems: You have simply misread the scriptures.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:8-PeAkdY_wiUsM:http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/pope_benedict_xvi.jpg

Link for you: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm)

[sunlover1]

What you should have noticed by now is there are a lot of versions of the history of the canon.

I take it mostly as a tale of bibles.

For instance the Orthodox and Catholics both support the Apochryphal books, but even there, they aren't exactly the same.

For the Orthodox, you turn to the Septuagint for the answer. As you noticed in the thread, the Orthodox point to the use of the Septuagint in the New Testament. It's true, the Septuagint was used. However, it wasn't used exclusively, some New Testament quotes come from other versions than the Septuagint, and since the Orthodox continued right up to present to use the Septuagint as their Old Testament translation, you can see some of the quotes became more in agreement over time.

Anyway, the basic assumption is that the Septuagint in Jesus' time was like it is today and contained all the books and received the approval of Jesus as scripture. It's really quite a stretch and indeed as time goes on it's less supportable all the time.

It seems that the rational must have really become kind of a folk theory of scripture. We see for instance the Bishop of Constantinople, Athanasius, mentions what is and isn't scripture in his one letter (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html). He is quite adamant that the Jewish Old Testament is scripture and the Apochryphal books are not. He made one mistake, he didn't include Esther as scripture and inserted one of the Apochyrphal books in it's place, probably because he knew the correct number. Evidently he didn't go down to the local synagog to check.

In any case though, 2000 years of use of the Septuagint by the Orthodox pretty well assurred everything in it being considered scripture.

In the Catholic church, it's the tale of the Vulgate. Jerome translated the Vulgate. He started translating in 382 with a revision of the Gospels, finishing the Old Testament in 405. He too was adamant that the Jewish canon was the whole of Old Testament scripture. He states so in his prefaces (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.i.html)to the books. ( See the preface to Samuel and the Kings, as well as the prefaces of Tobit and Judith.) The Pope requested him to translate the Apochryphal books as well. He did some, but didn't do a very good job, many of the Apochryphal books are just taken from the Old Latin translations. The books don't quite match all the books in the Septuagint.

Those who say the canon was set in the late fourth century as the same as Catholics state today, seem to just ignore the fact that the person who translated their bible just a few years later seems completely unaware that the canon was set. The lists from that time are really kind of suspect and it just seems to difficult to grasp why Jerome seems so completely unaware of and indeed speaks what would be in direct contradiction to any set canon. Jerome used the term apochrpha for the noncanonical books.

Anyway, a little over a thousand years later in the Council of Trent, in a seriously split vote, the canon of the Catholic Church was set, and they did exactly what most Orthodox do, every book in their bible was considered scripture. Interesting isn't it that the protestants agree with Jerome and the Catholics who use his translation as the basis of the canon disagree with him?

When you study the early church fathers, there is really overwhelming support for the Jewish canon early, say before 400 A.D. The council of Jarnia story though appears not to be true. That was based on one man's hypothesis and is pretty well discredited now. It appears that Jarnia probably didn't even discuss canon much if at all and the canon was set before then, possibly long before then.'

Marv
Thank you BigNorsk.
This is a very well written
and informative post.
It really helped to clarify
some things.

:thumbsup:
sunlover

[Technocrat2010]

What you should have noticed by now is there are a lot of versions of the history of the canon.

I take it mostly as a tale of bibles.

For instance the Orthodox and Catholics both support the Apochryphal books, but even there, they aren't exactly the same.


Yes. Even within the Catholic Church, some of the Eastern Catholic rites have had historically different canons than those of the predominant Latin rite.

Which brings me to the question of... so what? :P

For the Orthodox, you turn to the Septuagint for the answer. As you noticed in the thread, the Orthodox point to the use of the Septuagint in the New Testament. It's true, the Septuagint was used. However, it wasn't used exclusively, some New Testament quotes come from other versions than the Septuagint, and since the Orthodox continued right up to present to use the Septuagint as their Old Testament translation, you can see some of the quotes became more in agreement over time.

Anyway, the basic assumption is that the Septuagint in Jesus' time was like it is today and contained all the books and received the approval of Jesus as scripture. It's really quite a stretch and indeed as time goes on it's less supportable all the time.

It seems that the rational must have really become kind of a folk theory of scripture. We see for instance the Bishop of Constantinople, Athanasius, mentions what is and isn't scripture in his one letter (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html). He is quite adamant that the Jewish Old Testament is scripture and the Apochryphal books are not. He made one mistake, he didn't include Esther as scripture and inserted one of the Apochyrphal books in it's place, probably because he knew the correct number. Evidently he didn't go down to the local synagog to check.

In any case though, 2000 years of use of the Septuagint by the Orthodox pretty well assurred everything in it being considered scripture.

In the Catholic church, it's the tale of the Vulgate. Jerome translated the Vulgate. He started translating in 382 with a revision of the Gospels, finishing the Old Testament in 405. He too was adamant that the Jewish canon was the whole of Old Testament scripture. He states so in his prefaces (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.i.html)to the books. ( See the preface to Samuel and the Kings, as well as the prefaces of Tobit and Judith.) The Pope requested him to translate the Apochryphal books as well. He did some, but didn't do a very good job, many of the Apochryphal books are just taken from the Old Latin translations. The books don't quite match all the books in the Septuagint.



You're confusing "canonical" with "scriptural". Neither Jerome nor Athanasius considered the deuterocanonicals as canonical. Given their respective Patriarchates, it's not surprising. But scriptural? Oh yes, they considered them just as divinely inspired as the rest. It's similar to some of the Eastern Orthodox churches not considering Revelation as canonical, yet accepting it as divinely inspired (indeed, in some of the older Orthodox bibles you will not find the book of Revelation).


Those who say the canon was set in the late fourth century as the same as Catholics state today, seem to just ignore the fact that the person who translated their bible just a few years later seems completely unaware that the canon was set.


Technically it was never set to begin with. Technically it remains open to this day, because the purpose of the Bible was never to be the source of the faith.


The lists from that time are really kind of suspect and it just seems to difficult to grasp why Jerome seems so completely unaware of and indeed speaks what would be in direct contradiction to any set canon. Jerome used the term apochrpha for the noncanonical books.

Anyway, a little over a thousand years later in the Council of Trent, in a seriously split vote, the canon of the Catholic Church was set, and they did exactly what most Orthodox do, every book in their bible was considered scripture. Interesting isn't it that the protestants agree with Jerome and the Catholics who use his translation as the basis of the canon disagree with him?

When you study the early church fathers, there is really overwhelming support for the Jewish canon early, say before 400 A.D. The council of Jarnia story though appears not to be true. That was based on one man's hypothesis and is pretty well discredited now. It appears that Jarnia probably didn't even discuss canon much if at all and the canon was set before then, possibly long before then.'

Marv

Actually the council of Jamnia (or Javneh or Jabneh, whichever you prefer) is no longer credited as a single council but rather a series of councils during that time period. In fact, some have proposed it was a school of Rabbinic studies whose works eventually gave rise to the Palestinian canon we see in the Protestant Bibles today and in the modern Jewish scriptures. I personally am inclined to agree with the "School of Rabbinic studies", but it's relatively up in the air.

[mont974x4]

You know whats funny about that? Non-Christians will point towards "contradictions" in the Bible when they try to disprove it, and you would probably tell them that there is no contradiction, but rather they have simply misread the scriptures. (And you'd be right.)

But you turn around and use the same flawed approach toward the Deuterocanonicals. And I say to you what you would say to those who say the Bible has problems: You have simply misread the scriptures.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:8-PeAkdY_wiUsM:http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/pope_benedict_xvi.jpg

Link for you: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm)
The Scriptures have no contradictions now that we tossed out those un-divine books.

[Catholic Christian]

The Scriptures have no contradictions now that we tossed out those un-divine books.
Well, you go ahead and stick with what the Rabbis decided in Jamnia, as Herr Luther did. I will stick with what the apostles used. The Catholic Church is "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apstolic", not "One, Holy, Catholic, and Rabbinic"

[mont974x4]

Well, you go ahead and stick with what the Rabbis decided in Jamnia, as Herr Luther did. I will stick with what the apostles used. The Catholic Church is "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apstolic", not "One, Holy, Catholic, and Rabbinic"
Herr Luther? As opposed to the religious tyrants known as popes?

[Technocrat2010]

The Scriptures have no contradictions now that we tossed out those un-divine books.
Who was the father of Joseph (the husband of Mary)? Was it Heli, or Jacob?

[Technocrat2010]

Herr Luther? As opposed to the religious tyrants known as popes?
Again, I invite you to provide evidence that the Rabbis in Jamnia were Christians, given that the same school also tossed out the Gospels.

[mont974x4]

Who was the father of Joseph (the husband of Mary)? Was it Heli, or Jacob?
One was his father and one his father-in-law. The language does not differntiate between the two.

[Technocrat2010]

One was his father and one his father-in-law. The language does not differntiate between the two.
Actually, it does. Please see Strong's Lexicon 2860 and 2859.

[mont974x4]

son form Luke 3:23

G5207
υἱός
uihos
hwee-os'
Apparently a primary word; a "son" (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son.



Father from Matthew 1:16

G1080
γεννάω
gennaō
ghen-nah'-o
From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.


I really don't see an issue.

[Technocrat2010]

son form Luke 3:23

G5207
υἱός
uihos
hwee-os'
Apparently a primary word; a "son" (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son.



Father from Matthew 1:16

G1080
γεννάω
gennaō
ghen-nah'-o
From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.


I really don't see an issue.


So are Heli and Jacob the same person, then? Because according to the Lexicon, Jacob would be the father of Joseph, and Heli begat Joseph. Which is it?

Then there's the case of Michal... childless, or childbearing?

[mont974x4]

So are Heli and Jacob the same person, then? Because according to the Lexicon, Jacob would be the father of Joseph, and Heli begat Joseph. Which is it?

Then there's the case of Michal... childless, or childbearing?
Sorry, I won't engage in your witch hunt. There is no contradiction in Scripture...only in how people read it.

[Technocrat2010]

Sorry, I won't engage in your witch hunt. There is no contradiction in Scripture...only in how people read it.

Give up easily, don't ya? :P
But...
Ah-HA! We FINALLY agree! :thumbsup:

There is no contradiction in scripture - when read properly. The divine message is inerrant, even if the human hands that wrote it wrote it with literary inaccuracies. In other words, there may be historical inaccuracies or anachronisms in the scripture (such as the case of Michal having children), but that doesn't detract from the divine message present in the Bible. Surely you'd agree on that, right?

[JacktheCatholic]

The Scriptures have no contradictions now that we tossed out those un-divine books.

I wonder why Luther threw out Revelations?

Of course he eventually decided to put it back in. Just strange how Protestants follow newly man made traditions from the 16th century and later.

Strange to me is all...

[david01]

Well, Jack, it probably won't seem so strange if you would read the thread on the OBOB forum on this topic. It is fairly old now. I think the last posting was sometime in November. The OP was something like, Why Did the Protestants Get Rid of Parts of the Bible? The bottom line of the whole thread was there wasn't a single person in the forum who had ever read the seven books in question and all agreed that none of these books established any doctrine whatsoever. As a result, they are of no value to Catholics other than to claim a sort of spiritual superiority - my Bible is bigger than yours, nah, nah, nah.

By the way, you know they can't matter much when the website, catholic.org, doesn't list them as books of the Bible and none of the folks there, when asked about the oversight, had even heard of them.

[Technocrat2010]

Well, Jack, it probably won't seem so strange if you would read the thread on the OBOB forum on this topic. It is fairly old now. I think the last posting was sometime in November. The OP was something like, Why Did the Protestants Get Rid of Parts of the Bible? The bottom line of the whole thread was there wasn't a single person in the forum who had ever read the seven books in question and all agreed that none of these books established any doctrine whatsoever. As a result, they are of no value to Catholics other than to claim a sort of spiritual superiority - my Bible is bigger than yours, nah, nah, nah.

By the way, you know they can't matter much when the website, catholic.org, doesn't list them as books of the Bible and none of the folks there, when asked about the oversight, had even heard of them.

Catholic.org uses the New Jerusalem Bible, which was published with the deuterocanonicals. For some reason they chose not to publish the deuterocanonical index on their website.

Also, please check the NAB, another authorized edition of the Catholic Bible - which has the deuterocanonicals.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

[JacktheCatholic]

Catholic.org uses the New Jerusalem Bible, which was published with the deuterocanonicals. For some reason they chose not to publish the deuterocanonical index on their website.

Also, please check the NAB, another authorized edition of the Catholic Bible - which has the deuterocanonicals.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html


Thanks bro I did not know about this post to me.

I especially like the last comment at the bottom of your link.

Quote:
The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, Jack, it probably won't seem so strange if you would read the thread on the OBOB forum on this topic. It is fairly old now. I think the last posting was sometime in November. The OP was something like, Why Did the Protestants Get Rid of Parts of the Bible? The bottom line of the whole thread was there wasn't a single person in the forum who had ever read the seven books in question and all agreed that none of these books established any doctrine whatsoever. As a result, they are of no value to Catholics other than to claim a sort of spiritual superiority - my Bible is bigger than yours, nah, nah, nah.

By the way, you know they can't matter much when the website, catholic.org, doesn't list them as books of the Bible and none of the folks there, when asked about the oversight, had even heard of them.


Personally I would not base what Catholics are taught on OBOB. Sorry to say that about my Catholic peoples but it is true. There are some that have been bottle fed on Protestant bibles and Protestant theology that they do not know what the difference is with Catholic doctrine and Protestant theology. I call them Cafeteria Catholics. Like I said "sorry".

But the fact is that the books Luther left out do support many Christian and even Jewish doctrine. Indulgences (yes I said indulgences) is supported by Maccabees and other areas. I guess Luther so hated the corruption with indulgences at his time that he figured he was doing everyone a favor by trying to erase it from God's book. What Luther should have done was try to correct the problem and not cut off part of scripture.

So, after all this, my point is that the Catholic Church cherishes ALL divinely inspired scripture of both Old and New. That Luther and those influenced by Bibles that stem from him have suffered a loss of the Word. To conclude...

You are wrong.

[sunlover1]

But the fact is that the books Luther left out do support many Christian and even Jewish doctrine. Indulgences (yes I said indulgences) is supported by Maccabees and other areas. I guess Luther so hated the corruption with indulgences at his time that he figured he was doing everyone a favor by trying to erase it from God's book. What Luther should have done was try to correct the problem and not cut off part of scripture.
A passage in Maccabees supporting indulgences would be helpful.

:thumbsup:

[sunlover1]

Just strange how Protestants follow newly man made traditions from the 16th century and later.

Strange to me is all...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0WvXpyufT8

[JacktheCatholic]

Nice touch sunlover... very nice. ;)

[Technocrat2010]

A passage in Maccabees supporting indulgences would be helpful.

:thumbsup:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

Principle 6.

[sunlover1]

Nice touch sunlover... very nice. ;)
clever ;) lol

http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

Principle 6.
Thanks!
And I am interested, but I
want to give it the attention
it deserves and I dont know
that I can hang out and play
much longer, other things
that I need to tend to.

Doubt I will be missed though ;)

:D

But I WILL look at it.

[Technocrat2010]

clever ;) lol


Thanks!
And I am interested, but I
want to give it the attention
it deserves and I dont know
that I can hang out and play
much longer, other things
that I need to tend to.

Doubt I will be missed though ;)

:D

But I WILL look at it.
You? Missed? Not at this range - I'm a heck of a sharpshooter.

Ohhhh... not that kind of "missed"...

Yes, you will be missed.