Posted on 12/25/2012 9:50:07 AM PST by narses
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 whore 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.
But not from Ninevah.
Judith 1:1 While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh,
I’ll do some more research on that. I was under the impression that the timing was off. Now this.
Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted in 931 B.C. and 210 years later when Assyria conquered Israel in 721 B.C. Then it says in Tobit 14 that he was 112 when he died. Oops!
“I have not said that Catholics are idolaters. “
Yes you have and we have all seen that. You have your flawed opinions, I adhere to that which Our Lord gave us, His Church. You denigrate our beliefs but that is just your human opinion and I have no need to pay any attention to your flawed beliefs.
Merry Christmas and May Our Lady Bless you and yours this Holy Day of her blessed Son’s Birth!
“I’ll do some more research on that. I was under the impression that the timing was off. Now this.”
ROTFLMAO!
Your expertise? Any reason anyone ought to take your odd opinions seriously?
No he did not! Jesus SPOKE Aramaic, which makes no such feminine form distinction—that, Petra, is Greek, which he didn't speak. He Actually said “Cephas”.Darn, another straw man down.
>> “Nonsense. He was given the authority (along with the other apostles to forgive sin” <<
This is just another of the things that make your kind look crazy.
Only the man that paid the price for sins can forgive them.
.
>> “And I’m contesting your argument as it is found nowhere in scripture.” <<
Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Is your Bible a bit tattered? Lost pages?
>> “ as well as with Paul’s own statement that HE WAS NOT ONE of the 12!” <<
.
Not one of the original 12, that is true. But he is one of the appointed 12 that advanced the way of Yeshua throughout the world, and the greatest of them also. Playing word games with God’s word is not something to be proud of.
Go take your your beef to whomever translated the Book of Matthew from Hebrew to Greek. I think they are a more enlightened source than you two. And you know, they may have actually been there to hear the words come from Jesus’ mouth.
And still you can’t provide any posts where I did.
>> I have no need to pay any attention to your flawed beliefs.<<
But still you respond to nearly all of them. Hypocrisy?
I've very confident that Jesus spoke Aramaic to his disciples and not Greek.
Surely you agree?
I am someone who has lived many years in foreign countries, and I can assure you, the issue when translating the SPOKEN word from one language to another is never, ever precise.
The Germans, for example, have three genders for things: Things are either a he, a she or an it; while in English, we only use the it. So if I ask in German, “Eine Beir, bitte.” I've actually said, “A female object, beer, please.” Of course, we'd never say it that way in English, we'd simply say “A (neutral article-object) beer, please.” If I said in German EXACTLY how I'd say it in English, it would be "Ein (masculine) bier (a feminine thing), bitte." I would get funny looks and sometimes a sneer about stupid Americans who can't even order a beer correctly.
The same difference between Aramaic and Greek. Aramaic, like English, doesn't use genders like Greek. So a rock (Cephas) is a rock is a rock. There is no play on words with a gender twist as in Petros/Petra. It simply isn't possible in Aramaic. In fact, if there is a play on words, it actually strengthens the Catholic claim that Jesus said “You are Rock—and on THIS Rock; I will build my church.”
God bless!
John 3:16.
Catholic, Protestant - It makes no difference if one heeds these words. If we agree on these words, we are all brothers in Christ.
I think your confidence is misplaced.
Yeshua spoke Hebrew. And Matthew was originally an Hebrew MS (likely all of the NT books were).
Nothing you've said changes the fact that Jesus (which is his English name, and since I'm an American speaking English, it is no sin to call him Jesus, nor saintly to call him Yeshua--I just want every one to know we're talking about the same Messiah, or in Greek, Christ) wasn't speaking Greek, so he didn't word play between Petros and Petra, which was my original point.
Jesus could certainly speak Hebrew, and any language if He wanted to, but not every disciple was as versed in formal Hebrew as Jesus—take Simon, later Cephas, whom we now call Saint Peter and his brother Saint Andrew, who were simple fishermen, for example.
If you have any scholarship that shows He did not speak Syriac or Aramaic, but only Hebrew, please enlighten me with a link, Brother. But whatever, believe anything you want. I'm certain one day we'll all know, when we stand before Him in all His Glory.
Amen!
No, it was not.
Aramaic was a Hebrew based dialect anyway.
But a direct translation from the Greek back into Hebrew reveals Hebrew word puns which are otherwise hidden - And those puns make no sense in Aramaic either.
A better linguist than me could probably take the verse in Aramaic AND Hebrew, side by side, and they'd be a lot closer in both words and grammar than the later Greek, which was my original point. :-)
A point not lost on me... Similar, but not the same. Your defense of Petros/Petra is not the point I was making - It is your comment that Yeshua spoke Aramaic that goaded me to a reply.
Since I will not accept the idea that a single verse (taken out of context, btw) is sufficient to build the unHoly Roman Empire upon, not to mention various and sundry authorities supposedly granted to the 'christian' nobility of popery, your original point is without standing wrt your defense, as far as I am concerned.
While much of the New Testament was WRITTEN in Greek [...]
No it was not. The New (renewed) Covenant was necessarily written in Hebrew.
[...] that was not the spoken language it later translated from.
Right. The original language was Hebrew.
Nothing you've said changes the fact that Jesus (which is his English name, and since I'm an American speaking English, it is no sin to call him Jesus, nor saintly to call him Yeshua I just want every one to know we're talking about the same Messiah, or in Greek, Christ)[...]
So when you meet a native Mexican named Juan, do you call him John because you are speaking English?
[...] wasn't speaking Greek, so he didn't word play between Petros and Petra, which was my original point.
See above wrt my take on your original point.
Jesus could certainly speak Hebrew, and any language if He wanted to, but not every disciple was as versed in formal Hebrew as Jesus—take Simon, later Cephas, whom we now call Saint Peter and his brother Saint Andrew, who were simple fishermen, for example.
Right. Both Hebrews. The coin of the realm is in Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Temple (and synagogue) scrolls were written and spoken in Hebrew... Even the bloody gravestones are (in the lion's share) HEBREW. How exactly were Simon-Peter and Andrew supposed to understand what was being said when they sojourned to the temple three times a year? The whole idea that they didn't know their native tongue is simply a ludicrous western myth.
If you have any scholarship that shows He did not speak Syriac or Aramaic, but only Hebrew [...]
I did not say ONLY. My point is that Hebrew was spoken in the main. It would be unfortunate to suggest that then, like now, Aramaic was not common too - One would suppose that most folks thereabouts were at least bi-lingual... At least as unfortunate as to suggest that Hebrews weren't as bull-headed then as they are now about preserving their unique tongue.
please enlighten me with a link, Brother.
This report, while not scholarship in and of itself, backs up it's position quite nicely with the sort of books you might be interested in. The Jerusalem School, and Hebrew University are without peer in this sort of thing.
And the report (which I don't fully agree with btw), is a nice, easy read. Not knowing the investment you would require for your interest, the main talking points are reasonably fleshed out therein in a rather concise form.
But whatever, believe anything you want. I'm certain one day we'll all know, when we stand before Him in all His Glory.
Amen to that, FRiend.
“This is just another of the things that make your kind look crazy.”
Oh, it’s just my kind, eh? ;)
Matthew 16:17-20
“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
“Only the man that paid the price for sins can forgive them.”
Then why did that same man, Christ himself; say that he was giving Apostle Peter the power to bind and loose?
“Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.”
Them refers to one of the churches of Revelations. You’ve divorced the passage from it’s chapter.
“Not one of the original 12, that is true. But he is one of the appointed 12 that advanced the way of Yeshua throughout the world, and the greatest of them also.”
Nope, where does Scripture say that Paul is one of the 12? Paul himself says that he is not one of the 12, and is an Apostle the least of the Apostles because he persecuted the church.
Nowhere does scripture say that the Apostle selected to replace Judas was deposed and replaced by Paul. Paul’s own statement to the contrary demonstrates this is entirely fiction.
“Playing word games with God’s word is not something to be proud of.”
As opposed to lying about what it says?
“Yeshua spoke Hebrew. And Matthew was originally an Hebrew MS (likely all of the NT books were).”
Uh, no. Just, plain, no. All of the NT was originally written in Greek.
“Since I will not accept the idea that a single verse (taken out of context, btw) is sufficient to build the unHoly Roman Empire upon”
Then you reject the verse two verses previous, “You are the Christ” also.
“Go take your your beef to whomever translated the Book of Matthew from Hebrew to Greek.”
The oldest manuscripts of Matthew are in Greek, not Hebrew.
What evidence do you possess that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew?
You can deny the entire word of God, and change it to please your pagan catholic fantasies as you please, but the price is yours to pay when the time comes.
Enjoy.
Hebrew was the only language that any of the disciples could speak. Aramaic was the language of the descendents of Shem’s eldest son Aram, and spoken by the upper classes of Babylon, but never was used by any of the Hebrews that exited Babylon, although they did add aramaic words that had no counterpart in Hebrew to their vocabulary.
It is utterly illogical to think that the original manuscripts of NT books were written in anything but Hebrew. Who would have educated the disciples to write that language?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.