• With the events that occured on July 13th, 2024, a reminder that posts wishing that the attempt was successful will not be tolerated. Regardless of political affiliation, at no point is any type of post wishing death on someone is allowed and will be actioned appropriately by CF Staff.

  • Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Bible - 73 or 66 Books?

PanDeVida

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2007
878
339
✟49,602.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So why does the Catholic Bible have 73 books, while the Protestant Bible has only 66 books? Some protestants believe that the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible at the Council of Trent in response to Luther’s Reformation, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books. In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, which Pope Boniface agreed to. The Council of Trent, in 1546, in response to the Reformation removing 7 books from the canon (canon is a Greek word meaning “standard”), reaffirmed the original St. Athanasius list of 73 books.

So what happened? How come the King James Bible only has 66 books? Well, Martin Luther didn’t like 7 books of the Old Testament that disagreed with his personal view of theology, so he threw them out of his bible in the 16th Century. His reasoning was that the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 AD didn’t think they were canonical, so he didn’t either. The Jewish Council of Jamnia was a meeting of the remaining Jews from Palestine who survived the Roman persecution of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It seems that the Jews had never settled on an official canon of OT scripture before this. The Sadducees only believed in the first 5 books of the Bible written by Moses (the Pentateuch), while the Pharisees believed in 34 other books of the Old Testament as well. However, there were other Jews around from the Diaspora, or the dispersion of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, who believed that another 7 books were also divinely inspired. In fact, when Jesus addressed the Diaspora Jews (who spoke Greek) he quoted from the Septuagint version of the scriptures. The Septuagint was a Greek translation by 70 translators of the Hebrew Word. The Septuagint includes the disputed 7 books that Protestants do not recognize as scriptural.

Initially, Luther wanted to kick out some New Testament Books as well, including James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He actually said that he wanted to “throw Jimmy into the fire”, and that the book of James was “an epistle of straw.” What is strange is that Luther eventually accepted all 27 books of the New Testament that the Catholic Pope Damasus I had approved of in 382 AD, but didn’t accept his Old Testament list, preferring instead to agree with the Jews of 90 AD. Luther really didn’t care much for Jews, and wrote an encyclical advocating the burning of their synagogues, which seems like a dichotomy. Why trust them to come up with an accurate canon of scripture when you hate and distrust them so much? And why trust the Catholic Church which he called “the harlot of Babylon” to come up with an accurate New Testament list? Can you imagine the outrage by non-Catholics today if the Pope started throwing books out of the Bible? But strangely, Luther gets a pass on doing that exact same thing.

For the record, Jesus took the Kingdom away from the Jews (Matthew 21:43), and gave it to Peter and His new Church (Matthew 16:18), so the Jewish Council of Jamnia had no Godly authority to decide anything in 90 AD. They used 4 criteria for deciding whether or not certain books were canonical –

1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible- ......Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy);

2. They could not have been written after the time of Ezra (around 400 BC);

3. They had to be written in Hebrew;

4. They had to be written in Palestine.

So this method employed by first century Jews would automatically exclude all of the Gospels, and the Epistles of the New Testament, which were also written in the first century. But there were other books written before Christ, after Ezra, and some in Greek as well. These 7 books were accepted by the Diaspora Jews (the Alexandrian Canon) who were not in Palestine. These 7 books are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, First Maccabees, and Second Maccabees, as well as additional verses of Daniel and Esther. These books are called the “deuterocanon”, or second canon, by Catholics, and the “apocrypha”, or hidden/obscure, by Protestants (Christians who protest against the Catholic Church).

There are several objections to these 7 books, besides not being approved at the Jewish Council Jamnia. Some say that since the New Testament never references these disputed books, then that proves that they are not canonical. But that isn’t right, because the non-disputed books of Ecclesiastes and Ezra aren’t mentioned in the New Testament at all, not even once. By this standard then, Ecclesiastes and Ezra aren’t canonical either. On the other hand, there are many references indeed from the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament. Anybody who reads the book of Wisdom 2: 12-20 would immediately recognize that this is a direct reference to the Jews who were plotting against Jesus in Matthew 27:41-43:

Wisdom 2:12-20: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
Matthew 27: 41-43: So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, `I am the Son of God.’”

Another similar instance of this is Hebrews 11:35 being a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7, where the mother and her 7 sons were slaughtered by the evil King for not forsaking the Jewish law. Romans 1:19-25 is also referenced in Wisdom 12-13. The clincher, of course, is that Jesus Himself observed the feast of Hannukah, or the Dedication of the Temple, in John 10. This can be found in the Old Testament book of First Maccabees, Chapter 4, which is in the Catholic Bible, but not in the Protestant Bible.

Additionally, there are some unscriptural books referenced in the New Testament, like Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (in the book of Jude), so if the standard is that books referenced in the New Testament are canonical, then Enoch and the Assumption of Moses would be in the Old Testament, but they are not.

Some people object to these 7 books because they claim some of the early church fathers like St. Jerome didn’t think they were divinely inspired. While it’s great that all of a sudden so many non-Catholics start quoting the early Church Fathers, it’s not right to quote them on this and then not on the Eucharist, the papacy, or the supremacy of Rome, all which prove that the Catholic Church was the only Church around in those days. St. Jerome initially had some concerns about these books, saying that the Palestinian Jews didn’t consider them canonical, but St. Jerome was not infallible, and later agreed that they were. All of the early Church Fathers accepted these disputed books as divinely inspired.

Still others object to some of the disputed 7 books because of historical or geographical errors in them. And there are some, but it has to be remembered that not all stories in the Bible are historical. For instance, was there really a rich man who died and went to hell, and then saw his poor servant in the bosom of Abraham? Was there really a young man who sold his inheritance and went off to a faraway country and squandered it, and returned home as the prodigal son? Was there really a vineyard where the workers who showed up late got paid the same as the workers who worked all day? Or is it rather not more important that these parables teach important theological lessons than it is for them to be 100% historically accurate? In other words, books of fiction that relate Biblical truths can be divinely inspired.

It’s important also to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls included the book of Tobit and the book of Sirach, proving that the people back then thought them canonical, because they were found with the book of Isaiah and other Old Testament books.

And you can check all of this out for yourself. The first bible ever printed was the Gutenberg Bible, in the century BEFORE Luther started his Reformation. And the 7 books are indeed in that Bible. To see for yourself, click here.

And an interesting numerology coincidence occurs here as well. In the bible, the number 7 denotes perfection (God rested on the 7th day, 7 spirits that minister to God, 7 sacraments), and the number 3 represents the Holy Trinity. On the other hand, the number 6 represents imperfection (as in 666). Therefore, 73 books sure sounds a lot better than 66 books!

To check out a great list of all of the New Testament references to the deuterocanonicals by Catholic genius and all around good guy Jimmy Akin, click here.

Some of the more interesting items in these 7 books are as follows:

In 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, we learn how Judas Maccabees prayed for the dead and made atonement FOR THEM by sending money to the temple as a sin offering (purgatory).

In 2 Maccabees 6:12-14, we learn how God punishes nations.

In 2 Maccabees 2:4-7, we learn the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant and when it will be found (Sorry Indiana Jones!).

In 2 Maccabees 15:12-17, we learn about how saints in heaven pray for us and help us out here on earth.

In Wisdom 7, we see a biblical type of the Blessed Virgin Mary known as "wisdom."

In Sirach 38:1-15, we learn about the role of the physician and how God uses him/her to cure us.


In Tobit, we learn about the Archangel Raphael (a name which means God Heals), the only place in the entire bible where he is mentioned. We also learn about the anti-marriage demon Asmodeus.

In Judith, we see a biblical type of Mary crushing the head of the serpent; Judith cuts off the head of the evil General Holofernes, and saves Israel.


www.Catholicbible101.com
 

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,267
✟583,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So why does the Catholic Bible have 73 books, while the Protestant Bible has only 66 books?
Some books of questionable authenticity were initially included, but that was corrected later on.

Thanks for asking.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Kerensa

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
750
911
Kent
✟103,391.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So what happened? How come the King James Bible only has 66 books?

Actually, the King James Version as originally published in 1611 contained 14 books of the Apocrypha, including the ones that Luther rejected! ;) (Biblical Apocrypha: King James Version) It wasn't until later in the 17th century that English Protestants excluded the Apocrypha.

I'm not very familiar with the Apocrypha myself, but definitely don't discount them and would like to study them further, especially after reading your very interesting and informative post — thanks, PanDeVida. :)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,267
✟583,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Actually, the King James Version as originally published in 1611 contained 14 books of the Apocrypha, including the ones that Luther rejected!

They were published ALONG WITH the 66 books of the Bible. They were not considered to be part of the Bible as inspired writings.

It wasn't until later in the 17th century that English Protestants excluded the Apocrypha.
From the book, that is. It's a mistake to think that Protestants--Anglicans or Lutherans, for example--ever considered the Apocryphal books to be revelation. In the case of the KJV, you can verify this by reading the Church of England's Articles of Religion which preceded the publication of the KJV.
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,916
17,181
Canada
✟279,098.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Actually, the King James Version as originally published in 1611 contained 14 books of the Apocrypha, including the ones that Luther rejected! ;) (Biblical Apocrypha: King James Version) It wasn't until later in the 17th century that English Protestants excluded the Apocrypha.

I'm not very familiar with the Apocrypha myself, but definitely don't discount them and would like to study them further, especially after reading your very interesting and informative post — thanks, PanDeVida. :)
The KJV was widely printed with the Apocrypha until well into the 19th century.

It's good to distinguish between the Canonical and Deuterocanonical books, though.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
52,400
11,415
Georgia
✟997,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So why does the Catholic Bible have 73 books, while the Protestant Bible has only 66 books? Some protestants believe that the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible at the Council of Trent in response to Luther’s Reformation, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired.


405 A.D. Jerome completes the Vulgate and notes in it that the Apocrypha is not canonical is not in the existing Hebrew Bible accepted as scripture for all the centuries before.

The argument that Jerome was a protestant is not accepted. As we all know.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
8,078
4,267
✟325,463.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
My Greek Orthodox bible has 76 books in it. I think the problem with canon comes in that God hasn't give us a revelation as to what exactly are the books which constitute scripture. The Orthodox church doesn't have a closed canon since it's never been addressed in a council or definitively by the Church yet there's still a list of generally agreed upon scripture.

I think where Protestants make an error is in trusting the Hebrew canon above the traditional Christian canon which was established long before the reformation and came to ascendancy in that time too. Why assume the Jewish canon is more accurate than the church's canon? Of course I am aware of lists within the Church fathers like Jerome who exclude other books yet they aren't the only voices that testify to the beliefs of the Church.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
52,400
11,415
Georgia
✟997,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
My Greek Orthodox bible has 76 books in it. I think the problem with canon comes in that God hasn't give us a revelation as to what exactly are the books which constitute scripture. The Orthodox church doesn't have a closed canon since it's never been addressed in a council or definitively by the Church yet there's still a list of generally agreed upon scripture.

I think where Protestants make an error is in trusting the Hebrew canon above the traditional Christian canon which was established long before the reformation and came to ascendancy in that time too. Why assume the Jewish canon is more accurate than the church's canon? Of course I am aware of lists within the Church fathers like Jerome who exclude other books yet they aren't the only voices that testify to the beliefs of the Church.

But of course we are not talking about Catholic books or even books written by NT Christians in the first century - we are talking about Jewish books... we are talking about the Hebrew Bible and whether the content of it which we have in 39 books... should have been 39 or 50. The Jews say 39 and that was the Bible that Christ had - the one that was kept in the Temple in Jerusalem.

As Josephus points out the Jews had not changed their Bible in over 300 years. IT is not the Bible of Christ's day to add 11 books to the Hebrew Bible.

They "knew" about the 11 books - but they did not add them to the scriptures. The canonized set that had been fixed for over 3 centuries.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
8,078
4,267
✟325,463.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
But of course we are not talking about Catholic books or even books written by NT Christians in the first century - we are talking about Jewish books... we are talking about the Hebrew Bible and whether the content of it which we have in 39 books... should have been 39 or 50. The Jews say 39 and that was the Bible that Christ had - the one that was kept in the Temple in Jerusalem.

As Josephus points out the Jews had not changed their Bible in over 300 years. IT is not the Bible of Christ's day to add 11 books to the Hebrew Bible.

They "knew" about the 11 books - but they did not add them to the scriptures. The canonized set that had been fixed for over 3 centuries.

The problem with saying Josephus represents all of Judaism is that it's not clear that he does. The existence of the LXX and Greek translations of the deuterocanonicals before Christian use of them points to a Jewish use of them. One need only look at the dead sea scrolls which contain books like Tobit to see that Judaism was more multifaceted than we think in the first century. Also it's not entirely clear if the Apostles would have automatically agreed with Josephus on the books of the Old Testament given that they do not quote all of the Old Testament books in any canon and also quote a book that no one except the Ethiopian church considers canonical scripture.

Certainty Josephus represents the strain of Judaism which would become dominant, yet that is not a specific reason for why the Jews are right and why the Church was wrong. If the Church was wrong to make use of the deutrocanonicals as scripture was it also wrong to make use of the New Testament? Do we as Christians have to entrust our interpretation of the Old to the Jews if we have to entrust the decision of our canon to the Jews?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
52,400
11,415
Georgia
✟997,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The problem with saying Josephus represents all of Judaism is that it's not clear that he does.

Jerome was convinced - and he was not a Jew.

Furthermore it is not at all clear that Catholics at the time of Josephus even existed. They certainly could not have been a "more reliable source" than Josephus.

The existence of the LXX and Greek translations of the deuterocanonicals before Christian use of them points to a Jewish use of them.

Josephus and every historian on the planet freely admitted that the Greek LXX was not what was being kept in the Jewish Temple as their canon as the time of Christ.

One need only look at the dead sea scrolls which contain books like Tobit to see that Judaism was more multifaceted than we think in the first century.

Everyone agrees that all those factions did not have their own little room in the Jewish temple keeping their own version of the canonized scriptures. This is not the point that any historians dispute.

Also it's not entirely clear if the Apostles would have automatically agreed with Josephus on the books of the Old Testament

Josephus did not write "in my opinion these are the blessed and holy books of the Bible" -- rather he reported the news. For example the fact that only the OT books - only what we now have as the 39 books of the OT -- only that was in the Jewish temple and had been unchanged canon for over 300 years.

Certainty Josephus represents the strain of Judaism which would become dominant, yet that is not a specific reason for why the Jews are right and why the Church was wrong

1. No NT writer refutes what Josephus wrote on that point.
2. Almost all NT writers were Jewish Christians.
3. This is a question about Jewish text, Jewish authors... not post-Cross Christian ones.

. If the Church was wrong to make use of the deutrocanonicals as scripture was it also wrong to make use of the New Testament?

The NT was written by Christians -- you would think that Christians would have some level of authority to talk about their own text.

That seems far more reasonable than asking some christian group to insert their views into what the Jews were holding as sacred in the Temple as if they could speak for JEWs. Even Jerome knew that was wrong.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
52,400
11,415
Georgia
✟997,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Oh, I agree. I don't consider the Apocrypha canonical, but that doesn't mean one can't learn or gain anything useful from them.

Is is apocryphal but not canonical. Still we can learn some things from it.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
8,078
4,267
✟325,463.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Jerome was convinced - and he was not a Jew.

Furthermore it is not at all clear that Catholics at the time of Josephus even existed. They certainly could not have been a "more reliable source" than Josephus.


Josephus and every historian on the planet freely admitted that the Greek LXX was not what was being kept in the Jewish Temple as their canon as the time of Christ.


Everyone agrees that all those factions did not have their own little room in the Jewish temple keeping their own version of the canonized scriptures. This is not the point that any historians dispute.


Josephus did not write "in my opinion these are the blessed and holy books of the Bible" -- rather he reported the news. For example the fact that only the OT books - only what we now have as the 39 books of the OT -- only that was in the Jewish temple and had been unchanged canon for over 300 years.


1. No NT writer refutes what Josephus wrote on that point.
2. Almost all NT writers were Jewish Christians.
3. This is a question about Jewish text, Jewish authors... not post-Cross Christian ones.

The NT was written by Christians -- you would think that Christians would have some level of authority to talk about their own text.

That seems far more reasonable than asking some christian group to insert their views into what the Jews were holding as sacred in the Temple as if they could speak for JEWs. Even Jerome knew that was wrong.

Jerome was one opinion amongst the variety of opinions that we see. Augustine was another and his thought was far more influential than Jerome's. Like I said, I don't deny the shorter canon lists we see in figures like Jerome or even later figures like John of Damascus, yet we also have to contend with the ancient codices we do have that contain the deuterocanonical works. Those bibles were used after all and show us the diversity of opinion on the matter and show the development of the fuller canon most Christians enjoy today.

As for Josephus speaking about which books were kept in the temple I would like to see the primary source where he says the full Jewish canon was kept there. Since the control of the temple rested int he hands of the Sadducees who accepted (as far as we know) the five books of Moses, I can't get behind that idea without some evidence. As for saying that Josephus simply reported things as is, I don't think that's good history. Josephus has his biases like all ancient sources do and we know that he was a Pharisaical Jew in his personal theological alignment. That group later came to dominate Judaism but before then, before the second temple it wasn't as clear a matter. Much investigation into the 2nd temple period has shown us just how diverse Judaism was and could have been, this due to a considerable lack of resources which don't allow us to fully perceive the world of 2nd Temple Judaism. Naturally this also applies to the question of canon.

You seem to be assuming that Jews during this time all agreed on the same thing yet that is unsubstantiated. Stating that the New Testament authors don't contradict Josephus isn't evidence they embraced that particular canon, rather it only shows there were a set of books which certain Jews (if not a main percentage) agreed were considered scripture. Telling me that the New Testament Authors were Jewish Christians doesn't automatically prove they were in total agreement with the traditional Jewish canon when we consider that Jews of that time disagreed over matters as much as Christians disagree over matters today. Finally I can admit the character of the Old Testament as Jewish but that doesn't seem warrent enough to simply throw out our own capacity to discern what we have received and give it up to the Jews to determine, especially in the case of a canon. For instance that logic would imply we would have to let the Jews decide our New Testament canon, but we don't for obvious reasons. If Christians are counted as Children of Abraham and are inheritors of what God has done in Israel we have every right to the "Jewish" scriptures as the Jews do.

That being said, i am not inserting my viewpoint onto the Jews of the 2nd Period at all. Ironically that would be you, since you are insisting that the matter was settled and a single quotation from Josephus regarding the list of books in the bible proves it. It doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
8,078
4,267
✟325,463.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Mostly , (obviously?), it is misleading, and creates (or exposes) ungodly lives in those who don't trust God's Word.

So trusting in the deuterocanonicals creates ungodly people? Did I read that right?
 
Upvote 0

-V-

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2016
1,229
511
USA
✟38,038.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
29,559
13,868
73
✟401,344.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Well, if having seven other Old Testament books makes our Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends happier and prouder that they are better, then that is their issue. If, however, they insist that those of us who differ from them are somehow condemned by their God then that is another issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
52,400
11,415
Georgia
✟997,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So trusting in the deuterocanonicals creates ungodly people? Did I read that right?

Apocryphal works cannot be inserted into the Jewish Bible "For them". They would have had to have done that.

And they did not as Josephus notes.

As for the Jews referring to those books as "a second canon" -- "deuteroncanonical" -- well... "they did not"
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
52,400
11,415
Georgia
✟997,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Jerome was one opinion amongst the variety of opinions that we see.

Jerome was one of the few of his day that could actually "read" both Hebrew AND Greek and in a position to create a Latin text.

Augustine was another and his thought was far more influential than Jerome's.

Augustine translated no Bible - created no new translation in any language at all. He never mastered Greek and could not read Hebrew. Jerome could read both and new from the historic records and the original languages the that the apocryphal books did not belong to the accepted Canon of the OT text.

A text not at all authored by Catholics.


Like I said, I don't deny the shorter canon lists we see in figures like Jerome or even later figures like John of Damascus, yet we also have to contend with the ancient codices we do have that contain the deuterocanonical works.

No one ever denied that those works 'existed'.

But they are not NT text... they are not authored by Christians -- and the Jews did not retain them in their canon which they held to be fixed for over 300 years before Christ - and kept in that fixed form in the Temple in Jerusalem.


As for Josephus speaking about which books were kept in the temple I would like to see the primary source where he says the full Jewish canon was kept there. Since the control of the temple rested int he hands of the Sadducees who accepted (as far as we know) the five books of Moses, I can't get behind that idea without some evidence.

Clearly the Jews of Christ's day accepted the 5 books of Moses - and more. "The Law the Psalms and the prophets". And the Jews themselves admit to more than 5 books in scripture. Josephus is not the only one who knew that.
 
Upvote 0