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 Luthers Reformation, but that couldnt 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 didnt 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 didnt think they were canonical, so he didnt 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 didnt accept his Old Testament list, preferring instead to agree with the Jews of 90 AD. Luther really didnt 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 isnt right, because the non-disputed books of Ecclesiastes and Ezra arent mentioned in the New Testament at all, not even once. By this standard then, Ecclesiastes and Ezra arent 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 didnt think they were divinely inspired. While its great that all of a sudden so many non-Catholics start quoting the early Church Fathers, its 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 didnt 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.
Its 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.
We dont need creeds; we have the word, and the Holy Spirit, and only those are trustworthy.So which version of the Bible has "the word, and the Holy Spirit,...", in your opinion, since you have clear differences with almost all of Christendom now and through the ages?
Apostolic succession is an unnecessary, and illogical fantasy. It is completely nicolaitan in its origin, being completely missing from the scriptures.
In thew OT there was a familial priestly succession, but Christ replaced the priesthood, and thereby abolished it, replacing it with the personal priesthood of each and every believer.
Apostolic succession is an unnecessary, and illogical fantasy.Really? And yet they appointed successors. Odd.
Try the New Testament. It may astonish you.
. The Church is a mystic body, whose members are indiscernable, thus not governable.
Certainly. I see that you still making that argument that it is right and good to make it all up as you go along. You may wish to reread St. Paul who especially pounds home the principle that Christianity is what the Apostles teach, not what any eunuch happens to wander by.
New International Version (NIV)
18 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 guess it all boils down to how you translate Greek. We as Protestants choose to believe as does this commentator that we as believers are His Church.
The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means rock or rock-man. In the next phrase Christ used petra (upon this rock), a feminine form for rock, not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say upon you, Peter or upon your successors, but upon this rockupon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ.
>> “So which version of the Bible has “the word, and the Holy Spirit” <<
.
One only need look at which version the Lord chose to use to spread to the world to answer that question. The KJV, even with it’s weakness coming from the Greek texts that had been deliberately corrupted by nicolaitans, is the one that was used to produce most of the asian language Bibles that he is proliferating.
One only needs look around a bit to see what work the Lord is doing. Presently he is conquering the nicolaitan corruptions of all of the Greek MS by uncovering more and more of the Hebrew original versions of the gospels. In time, we may find them all.
Sure, but He did that. I but don’t believe they continued to appoint what is now the Cardinals and Pope, much less was that ever the His intention.
>> “ You may wish to reread St. Paul who especially pounds home the principle that Christianity is what the Apostles teach, not what any eunuch happens to wander by.” <<
.
I agree fully on that, and eventually we may even be able to either affirm or correct what all of the gospels and epistles originally said in the Hebrew language that most of them were obviously written in.
See my #68. Same answer. I don’t believe they carried on nor had His blessing to carry on a tradition of Popes.
You cannot look up Christs church in any phone book; you have to seek it through prayer.I did that, and prayer led me to the Holy Roman Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
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!
In Judith we find an error of who Nebuchadnezzar was King of.
Judith 1:1 While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh,
Nebuchadnezzar didnt rule over the Assyrians he was King over Babylonia.
2 Kings 24:1 While Jehoiakim was king, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia invaded Judah
Why would anyone rely on books with obvious errors? The Holy Spirit inspired books have never been shown to have errors.
The KJV, even with its weakness coming from the Greek texts that had been deliberately corrupted by nicolaitans, is the one that was used to produce most of the asian language Bibles that he is proliferating.So after more than 1,000 years the Paraclete came back to clean up the Church? And He did so with "weakness"? You are entitled to your opinion, but since your opinion appears to fly in the face of Holy Scripture and 2,000 years of Church teaching, you won't mind if I follow the Holy Spirit home to the Church Our Lord gave us? Rather than trying to follow you and your viewpoint, which if I chose to follow your views, I would be following a man, right?
Merry Christmas!
That's a mighty broad brush you wield...
So which version of the Bible has "the word, and the Holy Spirit [...]
so this isn't multiple choice then? I work out of a protestant KJV or MKJV generally... Primarily because the protestant books are the most accepted. But I am not limited by any canon, and have read all the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal (both OT and NT) books extensively.
“That’s a mighty broad brush you wield...”
Not at all. The sects that reject the creeds, celebration of Christmas and such are few and far between.
“Primarily because the protestant books are the most accepted.”
By protestants. Circular reasoning.
How long between, and how many times were the Hebrews torn down in order to return them to the truth?
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Mt 28:18-20)
So are you saying that most of the last 2,000 years the Church has been in massive apostasy?
Why, local church pastors to shepherd the local churchES, of course.
And who chose them?
“Psalm 22 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.”
The passage in Wisdom builds upon Psalm 22 and may be derived from it as the writer of Wisdom would have been familiar with psalm 22. The trial, mocking and torture of jesus Christ were a fullfillment of prophecy from Psalm 22....not Wisdom!
“Certainly. I see that you still making that argument that it is right and good to make it all up as you go along.”
That does appear to be the basic answer - either Apostolic Succession, or whatever I think my prayers lead me to. Christmas is good, or it is pagan. Easter is good, or it is pagan. Venerating the Cross is pious or pagan, it all depends.
Merry Christmas my FRiend, May our Lord in His Mother’s arms this blessed Christmas guard and guide you and yours throught the ages.
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.