The Missing Books of the Bible (Ecumenical)

Last week, my friend who is a Baptist was visiting and came with me to Mass. The first reading was from the second Book of Maccabees. She had never heard of that book. I said, "It is in the Bible." She said, "It is not in my Bible." Is there a difference?

Yes, there is a difference between Catholic and Protestant editions of the Bible. However, to appreciate this question and its answer, one must first remember that almighty God never handed anyone a complete Bible and said, "Here it is." Rather, over the centuries of salvation history, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture to write down God's revelation to us. As time went on, the Church compiled these books to form a Canon — an authoritative set of Sacred Scripture — and declared it "God's Word." The books of the Old Testament were written probably between 1000 and 100 BC, and are usually distinguished as four sets: The Law (or Torah, our first five books of the Old Testament), the Historical Books, the Prophets, and the Writings. (The books of I & II Maccabees belong to the historical set, being written between 150 - 100 BC.) Even in the New Testament itself, we find references to the reading of the Law and the Prophets in synagogue services (e.g. Luke 4:16-19, Acts 13:15). After the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Jewish rabbis convened the Council of Jamnia (90-100), at which time they established what books would be considered their Sacred Scripture. At this time, some controversy still existed over what are called the seven "deuterocanonical books" — Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees — although they had been incorporated in their entirety or at least partially in versions of the Septuagint, the official Greek translation of the Old Testament (c. 100 BC). Part of the reason for the controversy was because these were the latest writings of the Old Testament and were written in Greek rather than Hebrew; the other books of the Old Testament — the "protocanonical books"-- were older and originally written in Hebrew. Modern scholars note that Jamnia did not exclude any books definitively; a rigid fixing of the Jewish canon does not occur until at least 100 years later, and even then other books-- including the deuterocanonical books-- were read and honored. Many Scripture scholars, however, have no doubt that the apostolic Church accepted the deuterocanonical books as part of its canon of Sacred Scriptures. For instance, Origen (d. 245) affirmed the use of these books among Christians even though some of the Jewish leaders did not officially accept them.

Meanwhile, the writing of the New Testament books occurred between the time of our Lord's death and the end of the first century. (Recent studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls by some scholars suggest a date of the earliest writings closer to the time of our Lord's death, whereas much scholarship seems to place the writings between 50 and 100 AD). After the legalization of Christianity in 313, we find the Church striving to formalize what writings of the New Testament were truly considered inspired and authentic to the teachings of our Lord. St. Athanasius in his Paschal Epistle (367) presented the complete list of 27 books of the New Testament saying, "These are the sources of salvation, for the thirsty may drink deeply of the words to be found here. In these alone is the doctrine of piety recorded. Let no one add to them or take anything away from them." This list of 27 books along with the 46 books of the Old Testament (including the deuterocanonical ones) was affirmed as the official canon of Sacred Scripture for the Catholic Church by the synods of Hippo (393), Carthage I & II (397 and 419). The letter of Pope St. Innocent I in 405 also officially listed these books.

Although some discussion arose over the inclusion of other books into the Church's canon of Sacred Scripture after this time, the Council of Florence (1442) definitively established the official list of 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the New Testament.

With this background, we can now address why the Protestant versions of the Bible have less books than the Catholic versions. In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title "Apocrypha," declaring, "These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading." Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God's work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament). Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the "non-canonical books" of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out. Why Luther took this course of action is hard to say. Some scholars believe Luther wanted to return to the "primitive faith," and therefore accepted only those Old Testament books written in Hebrew originally; others speculate he wanted to remove anything which disagreed with his own theology. Nevertheless, his action had the permanent consequence of omitting the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in Protestant versions of the Bible.

The 39 Articles of Religion (1563) of the Church of England asserted that these deuterocanonical books may be read for "example of life and instruction of manners," although they should not be used "to establish any doctrine" (Article VI). Consequently, the King James Bible (1611) printed the books between the New Testament and Old Testaments. John Lightfoot (1643) criticized this arrangement because he thought the "wretched Apocrypha" may be seen as a bridge between the two. The Westminster Confession (1647) decreed that these books, "not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority of the Church of God; nor to be in any otherwise approved, or made use of than other human writings." The British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1827 to remove these books from further publications and labeled these books "apocryphal." However, many Protestant versions of the Bible today will state, "King James version with Apocrypha."

The Council of Trent, reacting to the Protestant Reformers, repeated the canon of Florence in the Decree on Sacred Books and on Traditions to be Received (1546) and decreed that these books were to be treated "with equal devotion and reverence." The Catechism repeats this same list of books and again affirms the apostolic Tradition of the canon of Sacred Scripture.

But I have defended the view that 2nd Maccabees is inspired Scripture: in my first post that pointed to how the canon of Scripture was fixed: the Council of Carthage, and in concurrence the Sixth Ecumenical Council agreed it is. This is how we Orthodox know which books are in the canon of Scripture and which are not: the "Harps of the Spirit", the Fathers who met in the Holy Ecumenical Councils, whose decisions were received throughout the Church (which is why the councils are titled "Ecumenical", not because they styled themselves as such) told us which are and which aren't.

And of course, the Jews believed in creation ex nihilo "without the support of 2nd Maccabees": that's why the Jewish mother exhorting her sons to bravely face martyrdom as recorded in that book points to creation ex nihilo, and why the Jewish author wrote about this exhortation approvingly. Likewise Christians believed the doctrines of which St. Paul reminded the various recipients of his letters before St. Paul wrote them -- many of the letters are explicitly in the form of reminders of what he had taught them face-to-face. Remember, neither Jews nor traditional Christians place themselves under the constraint of being able to "prove" every doctrine from Scripture -- all have a concept of sacred tradition, which protestants, esp. those who call themselves "Biblical Christians" purport to reject, even while setting up (as is necessary, texts, whether inspired of God or written by mere men, not being self-interpreting) their own traditions. (For example, most "Biblical Christians" who purport to read the Bible "literally" have trouble with taking literally "this is My body" and "this is My blood" in the institution of the Lord's Supper, because their tradition is set up in part in deliberate opposition to the traditions of the Latin church.)

If you have 2nd Maccabees in your Bible, there it is in black and white: creation ex nihilo is a Biblical doctrine. If you don't, you have to rely on rabbinic tradition (to which you've just appealed) or some other interpretative tradition (e.g. derivative from the ancient Christian confessions all of which do have 2nd Maccabees in their canon) to hold the doctrine.

Why Christians would prefer to appeal to the Jewish interpretative tradition which since Our Lord's Incarnation has been denying that Jesus is Lord, denying that Jesus is the Christ, in preference for the tradition of the Church which has proclaimed Him as indeed Our Lord, God and Savior, and which follows Him, is a complete mystery to me, but that is what the preference for the Masorete over the Septuagint as the basis for the canon of the Old Testament amounts to: favoring the judgement of Christ-denying rabbis over the judgement of holy bishops.

“But I have defended the view that 2nd Maccabees is inspired Scripture:”

All of your arguments were already refuted. Since you didn’t bother to reply to what I said, even ignoring the words of a patriarch, I figured you conceded it or couldn’t refute my replies, and I figured that was the reason why you tried to shift the discussion.

It’s very common for people to just keep spamming over and over again the same arguments, regardless of how silly they are or how often they’ve been answered.

You’re free to hold whatever strange view of reality you want, but you can’t force other people to accept them by the force of repetition. If you don’t reply to what I say, I’m under no obligation to keep replying to you or taking you seriously on this topic.

“And of course, the Jews believed in creation ex nihilo “without the support of 2nd Maccabees”:”

Which basically is another admission that 2 Maccabees had nothing to do with that doctrine being believed, despite what you claimed earlier, that the church’s position was based on 2 Maccabees, that even the Apostles derived their understanding from 2 Maccabees. Of course, you then go on to say that the teaching of God creating the world from nothing is “tradition.” So now we’re off the canonicity of 2 Maccabees and the importance of its teachings, and are now ditching it altogether and relying on “tradition.” Which, really, all you’re doing now is disagreeing with Jews and Christians about the meaning of Genesis 1, and all the other passages that teach that God created “all things, and through Him all things consist,” and “not from that which is seen” as Paul puts it in Hebrews 11:3.

“Remember, neither Jews nor traditional Christians place themselves under the constraint of being able to “prove” every doctrine from Scripture — “

That is the position of the Eastern Orthodox, since most of their doctrines can’t be defended with just the scriptures, and only exist by picking and choosing what particular church Father to believe, despite the fact that they rarely believe all that your people claim to believe. For example, you basically just rejected the counsel of Cyril of Jerusalem when he said:

“Have thou ever in your mind this seal , which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lecture 4)

This is why I never take these types of arguments seriously, because it’s based on assumptions which don’t even make sense in their own universe.

Now as to your claim that I was appealing to “Rabbanic tradition.” That’s complete rubbish. I was appealing to what the Jews claim their own language means. Otherwise any attempt at exegesis or word-defining is simply an application of “tradition.”

You have not “refuted” anything. All you have done is to appeal to the protestant hermeneutical tradition to claim that the Holy Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council erred, and to claim this on the basis of a humanly established criterion for deciding which books are “inspired Scripture”. I have appealed to the Holy Tradition of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church (now usually called the Orthodox Church), and the decision of one of the Holy Ecumenical Councils and noted that the other claimants to that title (the Latins, monophysites and Nestorians — all of whose claims to catholicity as an Orthodox Christian I, incidentally, reject) are in agreement with the Orthodox on the matter of the canon. This is fact, not refuted by anything you have written.

Trust me, we Orthodox are very adept at ignoring the words of patriarchs — something the Latins never learned because until Pope Honorius fell into heresy in the 7th century, they had a good run in the West of not having to ignore their patriarch. Many of our saints were persecuted by patriarchs, which is why I referred to the consensus patrum, rather than quoting proof-texts from this or that Father.

We are talking past each other. You have no regard for the authority of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, and I have no regard for the protestant hermeneutic tradition with which you purport to refute their judgement. You seem to fancy that the Masorete represents a faithful reproduction of the hypothetical Hebrew ur-text directly inspired of God, and thus appeal to rabbinic tradition (yes, that’s what you were appealing to — rabbis using a Hebrew particle in an unusual technical way when reading the Scriptures, rather than in its usual meaning is not Hebrew linguistics, but rabbinic tradition) and base your reading on niceties of the Hebrew; while I, with the Church, prefer the Septuagint, even though it’s in Greek, because that’s the version the Holy Apostles quoted from and the Church has always used.

I hope that others have found reading our exchange edifying in some way so that there was some point to it, but it is at end. As we begin with radically different premises, neither will convince the other of anything. At least as it bears upon you and me, this one of those fruitless controversies the Holy Apostle Paul warned about in his letters, so it would be best to stop, part ways, and both go on glorifying Jesus Christ each according to our own tradition.

“You have not “refuted” anything. All you have done is to appeal to the protestant hermeneutical tradition to claim that the Holy Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council erred,”

Though, coincidentally, they certainly err (they forbid marriage to clergy, amongst other things), my argument was that you didn’t actually understand what that Synod accomplished. That was why I quoted your Partriarch and John of Damascus who wrote after the synod, since the point was to demonstrate that the synod did not do what you claim it did. It didn’t actually give any lists, mind you, it simply affirmed a wide array of contradictory affirmations of people/synods they accepted.

If we understood it as you do, then the Trullan synod disagrees with itself, since it affirms the synod of Laodicia which does not list the apocrypha (save Baruch), of Carthage which affirms them, of Athanasius who denies them, of Amphilochius who denies them, of the Apostolic Canons which gives a list of scripture that includes the Epistles of Clement, and yet still denies the majority of the apocrypha, etc etc.

Hence the reason why I quoted a Partriarch and a “Holy Father” who agreed with me, but not with you, who wrote after the synod, since it demonstrates, as Henry Percival points out,

“We have thus four [five if we accept the Laodicean list as genuine] different canons of Holy Scripture, all having the approval of the Council in Trullo and of the Seventh Ecumenical. From this there seems but one conclusion possible, viz.: that the approval given was not specific but general.” (NPNF2, Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Appendix Containing Canons and Rulings not Having Conciliar Origin But Approved by Name in Canon II of the Synod of Trullo, Appendix VIII, From the Iambics of St. Amphilochius the Bishop to Seleucus, on the Same Subject (The Canon of Holy Scripture), Note, p. 612.)

Unless you hold that the church can err, there is no other conclusion, as your theories don’t even make sense in their own universe, and you disagree with the Holy Fathers, especially of the East, who were near universal in their rejection of the apocrypha.

Mind you, they’re not perfect either. If memory serves, John of Damascus rejects Revelation. Athanasius is perfect except for Baruch, which he erroneously believed was accepted by the Jews.

“Trust me, we Orthodox are very adept at ignoring the words of patriarchs — “

And Church Fathers too, don’t forget them.

“You seem to fancy that the Masorete represents a faithful reproduction of the hypothetical Hebrew ur-text directly inspired of God, and thus appeal to rabbinic tradition (yes, that’s what you were appealing to — rabbis using a Hebrew particle in an unusual technical way when reading the Scriptures, rather than in its usual meaning is not Hebrew linguistics, but rabbinic tradition)”

The primary conclusions settled on the word “bara,” which was indeed linguistic and not “traditional,” though the “tradition” on “eth,” as you claim, was the same understanding taken by the translators of the Syriac and other Church Fathers. Thus, it was not an obscure reading.

Thus, your tradition conflicts with their tradition, if tradition it is. Come to think of it, a tradition can have no power unless it claims to be constant from the Apostles. If your tradition is different from the earlier traditions, it’s invalid.

You will come to find that most of your traditions disagree with someone elses earlier tradition. Hence the reason why scripture is the only reliable rule of faith (it doesn’t change, FYI.)

” I, with the Church, prefer the Septuagint, even though it’s in Greek, because that’s the version the Holy Apostles quoted from and the Church has always used”

You mean the Septuagint that removes important Messianic prophecies from the Old Testament? Such as: (note what’s missing)

Isaiah 9:6 (Septuagint)
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. 7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.”

How Jerome translates it from the Hebrew into the Latin:

Isa 9:6 parvulus enim natus est nobis filius datus est nobis et factus est principatus super umerum eius et vocabitur nomen eius Admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis Pater futuri saeculi Princeps pacis

And the KJV:

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

How the Targum by Jonathan Ben Uzziel renders it in his paraphrase, 30 years before the time of Christ:

“The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity. Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)

Notice what’s missing?

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.