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.
Thanks for that. But if your magisterium confounds the law, what then? The commandment of Yeshua is to uphold the Torah and the prophets. If the magisterium is found to have broken the laws of YHWH, how then is it any less fallible than your average milkmaid?
You must have missed the link I provided in my original argument in #154... Which no one has made any attempt to refute.
The earliest documentary evidence that we possess is in Greek. If the books are indeed translations from the Hebrew into the Greek, wouldn’t it be more likely that the first documents we possess would also be written in Hebrew, not Greek?
considering the paucity of extant texts prior to 350AD (of any kind), when the Hebrews had been dispersed for a couple of generations already, and considering the campaign to discourage anything of the Jews in that time and onward, it is of little surprise that such texts have been lost to time.
But, that does not explain the Aramaic structures within the Greek, and certainly does not explain the Hebrew structures hidden to the casual eye. One must translate the Greek back to Hebrew to find them.
And btw, my position is that what we possess is third generation... From an Hebrew original, to Aramaic, to Greek... That cannot be specifically defended as well, but it is the only way to account for both Hebrew and Aramaic structures therein contained - Unless one cares to assert that some amalgam of the two was present in the original, which I must needfully deny.
>> “All of Christianity believes in the traditional cross...” <<
.
Then explain why there is no mention of such in any epistle, nor in the Revelation?
Roman crucifixion is well described in colateral writings, and always the vertical post was a permanent installation, and the cross bar was placed on top.
Peter had no cross, and the bronze figure on display at the Vatican is of Jupiter/Zeus, not Peter; it came from Greece originally.
>> “Why are you citing someone that you don’t regard as authoritative?” <<
LOL!
It’s you that I cite, and your hypocrisy.
Solid analogy!
Taking tolls or selling groceries, no difference to the change maker. Its the money that counts, not the language of he who forged the coin.
Can’t you do better than that?
“No. Because it disagrees with the Torah.”
So the Torah says that if it’s only in one verse, it doesn’t count? Where?
“Nothing really. Just a sure knowledge that the Bible can say anything you want it to, especially if one is free to build it out of a verse here and a verse there.”
So again, you don’t believe you are called to follow scripture then in it’s entirety - only sometimes and in some places. Where do you draw the line? Where are we supposed to say, “thus far and no further”? What makes you different from the Arians per se?
“What locks it down into it’s meaning is the law and the prophets. And necessarily, if it destroys the law or the prophets, it cannot be true - ‘Every jot and tittle’, as it were.”
Which is contrary to what you are teaching here. Christ himself teaches that not the least jot will be struck from the Law - we are called to obey all of it, not just the parts we like.
This is also crucial to Romans, it’s the foundation of the distinction between Law and Grace.
“Work with that and see how far your tradition holds up.”
No, the burden is on you to show why your opinion on these matters should be taken into consideration. You’ve offered nothing except one word. “torah”.
“Nope.”
Yeah, it does. You’re taking a rule that you yourself have devised, which has no connection with scripture, and when challenged haven’t succeeded in citing a passage.
If this is all you’ve got, this matter is pretty much closed. :)
“Thanks for that. But if your magisterium confounds the law, what then? The commandment of Yeshua is to uphold the Torah and the prophets. If the magisterium is found to have broken the laws of YHWH, how then is it any less fallible than your average milkmaid?”
I might ask of you the same question. What happens when you confound the law and teach what is wrong? Is anyone going to come along and correct you, or will you simply continue on, blissfully unaware? What would the consequences be for getting it wrong?
“Taking tolls or selling groceries, no difference to the change maker. Its the money that counts, not the language of he who forged the coin.”
Nonsense. A tax collector is empowered by the state to collect taxes on their behalf. Such is hardly the case of a shopkeeper.
Obviously false analogy. There’s a very substantial difference between the two.
In any case, where’s the actual evidence that you have that the disciples only spoke Hebrew? Personal opinion with no basis in fact hardly construes ‘evidence’.
“It’s you that I cite, and your hypocrisy.”
Nope. You’ve already outed yourself as someone who believes that the magisterium is authoritative. Rather than admit the consequences of said Catholic doctrine, you’d rather gash yourself and say, “well I didn’t really believe in that anyways.”
So which is it? Is Papias authoritative or no? If he’s not - then you can’t use him to support your own argument.
Because Jesus told the fledgling Church that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them and that He would be with them until the end of world. We believe in His word. Notice that even Paul uses, over and over, terminology that says that the teaches whether oral or written by the Church is to be believed and followed over any man's interpretation.
Occasionally the tau cross was used, but again, where would the inscription be nailed? The usual cross was the lower case T.
Your hypocrisy is now amplified.
Those that you cite as authoritive disagree with you.
Obviously Papias is not in any way authoritive on doctrine, but his observation of fact still stands and shows your ignorance in vivid neon colors.
You embrace him and he calls you a liar - wonderful!
On the crossbar above his head seems most likely, although there is no definitive revelation on it.
>> “Notice that even Paul uses, over and over, terminology that says that the teaches whether oral or written by the Church is to be believed and followed over any man’s interpretation.” <<
Slippery falsehood!
Paul told his flock to hold what he said and what he wrote, and both of those are the same, exactly to the word.
Paul was not a deceiver, and would never speak that which he didn’t put in writing for the future. Paul was especially aware of the coming falling away and corruption, and the absolute requirement for all to be preserved in the written word, as it was, and spoke to it by telling each congregation to share the letters they received with all the other congregations.
Paul also knew that the church was only a mystic body, and never spoke nor wrote otherwise.
The Lord has called us out of Churchianity, calling it the Harlot and her daughters.
We were discussing a need for languages for accepting currency, thus the analogy is perfect.
Do you wish to make a bigger fool of yourself?
Yes, and the ability to communicate with your Roman supervisors would be essential for a tax collector.
Do you contest this?
“Paul also knew that the church was only a mystic body, and never spoke nor wrote otherwise.”
Where did Paul teach that the Church was a mystical body?
Arguing that he ‘never spoke or wrote otherwise’, is an argument from silence.
“Obviously Papias is not in any way authoritive on doctrine”
Then why are you citing him?
All over the place. "Out of the mouth of two witnesses" is mentioned literally in Deut 17:6 and Deut 19:15 in the law, and is practiced throughout the Torah and the prophets. Why do you think that everything is repeated at least twice?
And the same principle is amplified in the writings and the New Covenant. There is not a thing that YHWH has transmitted that He didn't give at least two ways, if for no other reason than the legal prerequisite of Deut... How can He justly convict a man without the same two witnesses that he requires of us?
So it is good, if one is defining a thing, that it is mentioned more than once. And foundational things (the principle things) are repeated over and over again, and differently, just exactly so they cannot be misinterpreted (IMO).
That does not mean that there are not things that are hidden, but foundations are made with very broad and apparent strokes.
So again, you don’t believe you are called to follow scripture then in it’s entirety - only sometimes and in some places. Where do you draw the line? Where are we supposed to say, “thus far and no further”? What makes you different from the Arians per se?
That is not true. I am not saying to ignore any part. I am saying that how one interprets any given thing must necessarily conform to that which has gone before. This is quintessentially the signature of YHWH, and is exactly why the law cannot be changed in one jot or tittle.
He is the only one claiming to be a god who has made what he has said in the beginning a sure and enduring thing. Every other 'god' has a mechanism in place which allows for changing the original thing (Islam's hadiths as an example). YHWH does not, because YHWH's Word is sure. He does not change.
More may be revealed, that is true - but that which is revealed cannot step upon that which is already defined, in both the law and the prophets. It cannot add to it, nor can it take away from it. What is said is said. And that, FRiend, is an unique and extraordinary thing.
Which is contrary to what you are teaching here. Christ himself teaches that not the least jot will be struck from the Law - we are called to obey all of it, not just the parts we like.
That should, in all honesty, give you pause, rather than me... How does one know that he loves YHWH? When he is walking in the commandments.
This is also crucial to Romans, it’s the foundation of the distinction between Law and Grace.
Indeed. But grace does not take away the law. Nor is it license. Sin is always sin - and sin is violation of the law, by definition. What grace has done is that it has taken away the curses of the law, because one who is innocent of your debt has taken on your debt.
We are not anymore caused to keep the law out of fear of reprisal, but rather because we love YHWH. We are bound to the law by love of YHWH which is a much stronger binding.
A child learns the law of his father in love, but that law is enforced ultimately in fear. A teen rebells, and goes his own way without any law. A young man, learning that law must be, makes his own law, in spite of his father, and learns the hard way what his father tried to teach. But a man understands, and keeps the law of his father in his own house, in fear no longer, but out of respect, love, and understanding. 'The Way' of his father has been learned.
No, the burden is on you to show why your opinion on these matters should be taken into consideration. You’ve offered nothing except one word. “torah”.
The burden is not on me - YHWH does not change. I am merely following (however poorly) His advice that the law of His house does not change, ever. The burden is upon YOU to show that the changes y'all have inflicted upon the Torah are ordained... And as the Torah cannot be changed, you will have little luck with that.
and THAT, FRiend, is the canary in the coal mine. Necessarily, the law cannot be changed. One may set up all the popes and magisteriums one can, but if their teaching is against that law, then they must needfully also be against Yeshua, or ultimately, one makes Yeshua a false prophet...
Yeah, it does. You’re taking a rule that you yourself have devised, which has no connection with scripture, and when challenged haven’t succeeded in citing a passage.
No, I have taken no liberty. And I need not cite the passage that says the law cannot be changed - you have cited it yourself.
I cited YOU being called a liar by him.
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.