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.
“Oh, but I believe the Word of YHWH just fine... It’s the Roman church and it’s supposed authority that I disbelieve... for reasons just like this one.
The text is the text. Either the bible is authoritative when it disagrees with your own personal interpretation or it is not, and your own personal interpretation reigns supreme.
Where is there a ‘one verse exception’? I don’t see that anywhere in scripture.
“Get real! - They were poor working class men.”
Some were, some weren’t. Matthew was a tax collector, that’s not ‘working class’. Luke was a physician, and he wasn’t ‘working class’ either.
Sounds like you’ve picked up the Gospel according to Marx, not scripture.
“Further, the Hebrew language is YHVH’s language, given specifically for conveying his word to all.”
Did Adam speak Hebrew?
“It is not likely that anything in the NT was first written in any other language”
And what evidence besides speculation do you possess to confirm this statement to be true? Do you have any manuscript evidence to confirm this? No. Is it true that they were probably more familiar in Hebrew? Sure. But I don’t see the evidence, and the textual evidence contradicts you. It is quite possible that Christ’s teachings were passed around orally, and then when recorded in Scripture some 20-30 years after his death, that they were written in Greek.
It’s also possible that the Apostles in the bible, had fewer skills than their counterparts 20-30 years later, about whom the bible does not talk about. People do learn things as they get older, especially when they leave their former life behind and take up another.
“Paul was the only apostle commissioned to the gentile world.”
Was he the first? Sure. Was he the only one? No. He was accompanied on his missions. There is considerabl textual evidence supporting a Greek origin of every NT book. There is zero supporting a Hebrew origin in terms of actual documents.
“Matthew was a toll collector, and needed only to understand Roman coinage.”
Would that not suggest facility in languages other than Hebrew?
If you believe in sola scriptura, why are you citing him as authoritative?
Because I figured that you would accept the word of one of your church fathers. Papias CLEARLY states that Matthew was written in Hebrew.
If he is authoritative on this issue, then you’ve just affirmed the teaching authority of the magisterium. You can’t cite the Fathers whenever convenient.
Baloney.
Your choice, accept the magisterium or reject them and stick to sola scriptura.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Oh there's PLENTY of it that I have a hard time swallowing. There are hard things to ponder within the Word. This verse, though, is not one of them... And what your church has extrapolated from this verse proves out that the original premise (as interpreted by y'all) is stone-dead wrong.
Where is there a ‘one verse exception’? I don’t see that anywhere in scripture.
Context and witness. Two invaluable friends when deciphering the oracles of YHWH. And if one studies the fault of the Pharisees - Actually looking at what they did- It is very much the same thing y'all are attempting to do here... Taking a single sentence (sometimes even half a sentence) and building their own context from it.... From that false context, an extrapolation... from that extrapolation, a law. SOSDD.
. Peter had no cross, it was originally the cross of Mithra.
Really? Jesus died on a cross of Mithra as well?
The Greek NT contains Hebrew colloquialisms and puns directly translated to greek from Hebrew, and they make no sense whatsoever in Greek, but to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Greek MS were translated directly from Hebrew.
They were primarily written by native Aramaic speakers (not Hebrew) and as such would bring their own idiomatic references and structure to the Greek. Try Engrich.com for an illustration of foreigners trying to get the hang of English.
Those Hebrew words and phrases of usually 6 or less words, require whole paragraphs to translate their meanings into Greek, and the greek translators were not sufficiently educated in the Hebrew culture to understand what they were reading.
The Septuagint was translated by (traditionally) 70 rabbis from Alexandria who knew the Jewish culture very well. The rest of the NT has no evidence that it was originally wholly or in part written in Hebrew.
Thanks Yeshua for exposing the fraud!
I think that the nature of the fraud exists at a tangent to your postings.
You’re allowing yourself to be deluded.
There is nothing Aramaic related to the gospels. They were written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew Colloquy (definitely not Aramaic) that got translated into the Greek copies is perfect proof that the originals had to be Hebrew. Hebrew puns can’t be translated into any other language with meaning, just as English puns cannot be translated into spanish and make sense.
The Greek translators didn’t realize that they even were puns, that is the irony, but it serves to give us the truth.
>> “Would that not suggest facility in languages other than Hebrew?” <<
.
Absolutely not.
The Peruvian grocers that I gave US money to last month didn’t speak a word of english, but they gladly took the money, and made change for the difference in Soles without any problem.
>> “If you believe in sola scriptura, why are you citing him as authoritative? If he is authoritative on this issue, then you’ve just affirmed the teaching authority of the magisterium. You can’t cite the Fathers whenever convenient.” <<
.
LOL! - You accept him as authorative except when he proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about?
That is about as catholic as anything can get!
.
>> “Really? Jesus died on a cross of Mithra as well?” <<
.
Honestly, is that what serves for logic in your mind?
The ‘cross’ Yeshua died on was the standard 6’ long wood timber that was placed on the top of a post that was permanently set in the soil.
The cross of Mithra that the RCC decided to adopt and call the cross of Peter is a bit different than that, isn't it!
“The Peruvian grocers that I gave US money to last month didn’t speak a word of english, but they gladly took the money, and made change for the difference in Soles without any problem.”
Is the Peruvian grocer a tax collector? No? Then I cite false analogy.
“Because I figured that you would accept the word of one of your church fathers.”
And why would I do that? Why should we care about what the Fathers of the Church wrote?
“Papias CLEARLY states that Matthew was written in Hebrew.”
And? So what? Who cares? Do you? What books of the bible did he write? Any of them?
“Oh there’s PLENTY of it that I have a hard time swallowing. There are hard things to ponder within the Word. This verse, though, is not one of them... And what your church has extrapolated from this verse proves out that the original premise (as interpreted by y’all) is stone-dead wrong.”
How so? Because it disagrees with your own personal interpretation?
“Context and witness. Two invaluable friends when deciphering the oracles of YHWH.”
Ahh. I see. So Christ nowhere says that “if it’s only in one verse, it doesn’t count”. I suppose that goes for ‘except for in cases of marital infidelity.
You’re making this all up as you go along, aren’t you? What other ‘special rules’ do you have that appear nowhere in scripture?
Do these ‘special rules’ count as Tradition?
“You accept him as authorative”
Why are you citing someone that you don’t regard as authoritative?
. Honestly, is that what serves for logic in your mind? The ‘cross’ Yeshua died on was the standard 6’ long wood timber that was placed on the top of a post that was permanently set in the soil.
Oho, you now profess the tau cross? If that is so, then how was the sign "Jesus King of the Jews" nailed above His head?
The cross of Mithra that the RCC decided to adopt and call the cross of Peter is a bit different than that, isn't it!
All of Christianity believes in the traditional cross and not the tau cross.
Okay, produce some proofs. Some fragments, some early communications that it was so. I'll bet that you cannot tell the difference between Aramaic and Hebrew anyway, so who are you relying on for this information?
The Greek translators didn’t realize that they even were puns, that is the irony, but it serves to give us the truth.
Interesting. Let's see who you think wrote the Gospels and who you think translated them into Greek, and where you think that the "original Hebrew Gospels" were dustbinned.
And why would I do that? Why should we care about what the Fathers of the Church wrote?
'WE'? I don't care. If you read upthread, Papias is hardly my first defense. But apparently, The Roman church listens to it's own fathers the same way it listens to the Word - Take what 'confirms' and throw out the rest. Frankly, I should have been expecting that.
Individual Church Fathers are not the Magisterium. Individual opinions, of Augustine or Jerome or anyone else, can be erroneous. That is why we reject the 'any milkmaid' interpretation of the Word or the word. If you read the Gospels and the rest of the NT, it is the collective interpretation of the Church that is to be considered correct, not anyone's whim or opinion.
” ‘WE’? I don’t care. If you read upthread, Papias is hardly my first defense. But apparently, The Roman church listens to it’s own fathers the same way it listens to the Word - Take what ‘confirms’ and throw out the rest. Frankly, I should have been expecting that.”
Indeed, Papias is irrelevant to your position. So, where’s your defense here? What evidence do you possess that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew not Greek? All you’ve provided in this thread is plent by of opinion, but precious little fact. My argument is simple.
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?
No. Because it disagrees with the Torah.
Ahh. I see. So Christ nowhere says that “if it’s only in one verse, it doesn’t count”. I suppose that goes for ‘except for in cases of marital infidelity.
Again, Torah, and the example of the Pharisees. Them that do not know history are doomed to repeat it... and repeat it, they do.
You’re making this all up as you go along, aren’t you? What other ‘special rules’ do you have that appear nowhere in scripture?
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.
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.
So a literary interpretation must conform to the Torah, and if a prophecy, must be built upon the prophets that have come before. Work with that and see how far your tradition holds up.
Do these ‘special rules’ count as Tradition?
Nope. Torah. You should read it sometime. :)
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.