Again, I do not want to insult any Protestant in what I have to say negative about Protestantism. The genuine sympathy that nearly everyone has for the past two popes, as well as for leaders such as Billy Graham or Falwell is very heart warming and is a testimony to the Christian faith we all have in common. It is typically when we get into the more dogmatic precincts of the faith that we find things to dislike. Moreover, please do not underestimate the respect I have for the political aspect of conservative evangelical Christianity, which is admirably solid in its support for conservative values. I am only speaking of trends that, I believe, arise from the Protestant dogma that are not salutary in their impact on the world.
removal of books
The Christian Canon of scripture was determined in early 5th century, last at the Council of Carthage in AD 419. Since then, and in fact for most of the preceding history of the Christian Church, the following books comprised the Canon of the Old Testament:
The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacue, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.We can disregard the variations in the titles. The important thing is that the Old Testament Canon included seven books that at the time were not in the Hebrew Canon: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; some passages from Esther and Daniel were not in the Hebrew Canon either. They were retained by the Christian Canon because they were part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the sacred Hebrew books, that was in use till AD 90 by both Christians and Jews, and till today by Christians who read Greek. Let me reiterate, at the time when the Church was formed the "scripture" meant Septuagint. It is therefore logical that Septuagint be the Old Testament part of the deposit of faith left by Christ, despite what later became of the Jewish canon. The Jews had reasons of their own to discard the seven books in question, the so-called "Deuterocanonical" books. By AD 90 the Jews separated from the Christians of Jewish origin and began to consider them apostates; it is reasonable to suspect that rejection of the more recent deuterocanonical books had something to do with their rejection not only of Christianity but of all the modern trends of the time.(Trent)
It is true that inclusion into the canon of some books of both the Old and the New testaments were variously disputed by Christian fathers also, especially Origen. The deuterocanonical books were disputed because of the canon revision by the Jews, but some New Testament books were also questioned, e.g. the Apocalypse of St. John, and other books were considered as candidates, e.g. the letters of pope Clement to the Corinthians and the Protoevangelium of James. But the three Carthage councils, last in AD 419, put an end to the dispute till the Reformation.
Luther argued against several canonical books: the deuterocanonicals and the Letter of James, and may be some others. He was persuaded to keep the Letter of James, but the deuterocanonical books he first separated as an addendum that he called "apocrypha" and then dropped altogether. The different, reduced Protestant Canon of the Old Testament was created.
The reason Luther objected to the Deuterocanonicals that is usually cited is twofold: that references to some form of communion with the departed souls are made throughout these books, thus reinforcing the doctrine of Purgatory, which Luther disliked; and that they were not a part of the Hebrew canon.
The Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Christian Canon in full. That was in response to Luther's challenge, as was the purpose of the entire council. The fact that Trent was very explicit in stating the inspired nature of the deuterocanonical books is sometimes distorted to support the notion that Trent added these books to some mythically original, conformant with Luther's, canon. This notion is patently false, -- it is sufficient to look at any Bible prior to Luther's, east of west, and see that the deuterocanonicals are there, in their rightful place.
The Catholic bibles today contain the complete Christian Canon. For the English translations see Douay-Rheims Bible, which is the oldest (older than King James) translation perfectly matching the Vulgate. More modern complete translations are also available in Catholic stores.
The Orthodox Bible contains the entire Catholic Canon plus sometime the Third book of the Machabees.
For more detailed treatment of the issue, see Canon of the Old Testament
I will take a break and respond to the rest of your post later.
Very much appreciated, thanks.
The important thing is that the Old Testament Canon included seven books that at the time were not in the Hebrew Canon: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; some passages from Esther and Daniel were not in the Hebrew Canon either. They were retained by the Christian Canon because they were part of the Septuagint, ...
I admit that I know basically nothing about this part of the history, so thanks for the whole intro. I am confused by the term "Hebrew Canon". Is this what became the modern Torah, or is this something the Judaisers were doing, or was it something else? Since you distinguish it from the Old Testament Canon, I don't know how "Hebrew" and "Canon" fit together.
Let me reiterate, at the time when the Church was formed the "scripture" meant Septuagint. It is therefore logical that Septuagint be the Old Testament part of the deposit of faith left by Christ, despite what later became of the Jewish canon.
So, then concerning the seven books (and anything else), what are the differences between the Septuagint, what is "my" OT (NIV), and "your" OT? Is it right that your OT has the seven books and mine does not, and this was a unilateral decision made by Luther? Are "our" NTs the same?
Thank you also for the links. When I get a chance I will take a look at them. If they answer my questions, please don't feel obligated to "repeat". :)