Posted on 07/20/2013 5:38:15 PM PDT by narses
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.
Isa the name of your church in the Bible?
The church didn’t start when Christ was born. He didn’t start his ministry until his thirties.
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."
Note carefully the assumption that's slipped in.
Christs Church was the Jewish synagogue. Christ was born a Jew, lived a Jew and died a Jew. His Church has been from the foundation of the earth and started in the Garden of Eden. It is not a manmade institution like the majority of churches. and it does not lay aside the Commandments of God and hold the tradition of men.
First off, when I look up into the skies or around the earth, I see nothing passed away. When heaven and earth passes away everyone on earth will be aware of it. The Mosaic covenant was conditional just like now "if you will indeed obey My voice". The ceremonial laws of sacrifice were abolished with Christs death but the Ten Commandments are still valid and will remain so.
I am reminded of the story about the BLIND MEN surrounding an elephant, and trying to describe the whole elephant based on their sense of 'touch'.
Each of them was 'correct', but none really knew the WHOLE TRUTH. They were each limited by their own 'point of view' and their own 'personal experience'.
No matter what, the whole elephant was always there.
“The Catholics had the Bible first. So what is the problem?”
Nonsense. Did “the Catholics” predate the Christian churches of Syria and the levant? No; the Christian Churches of Egypt?, No; the Christian Churches of Anatolia?, No; the Christian Churches of Greece?, No; which all were part of what we now refer to as the “Orthodox” churches!!! In fact, until the seventh century the majority of Christians in the world were part of the Orthodox churches and not the ROMAN Catholic church.
That 3:16-17 proves scripture alone is entirely sufficient? If this is your reasoning, there is an error; can you spot it?
Well yes the name of my church IS in the bible. John the Baptist of course.
But that’s not really my “church” just the denomination of where I currently attend worship. My church is christian which of course is also in the bible.
Yes Christ didn’t start his preaching until about 30, but he has always been the Son of God.
I asked a question several years ago, ( Which Bible is a Catholic translation?).
Never did get an answer.
I have a 1911 KJ Bible which has the other books in it, and have heard but can not verify that although king James was not Catholic he also did not think the Bible of the Church of England quite filled the bill.
He wanted the scriptures translated by some one other than those who already had their minds made up.
The Catholics had the Bible first. So what is the problem?
Another question.
Did they publish the Bible for every one to read or did they believe it was just for chosen people to read?
Not trying to be anti catholic here, just looking for the facts.
Douay-Rheims. NT published at the English College at Rheims 1582. OT published at Douay 1609. KJV published 1611. The other books were called “the Apocrypha” and were placed at the end of the OT. They had been in the Bible for over a thousand years until some people thought they knew better than the Church.
“First off, when I look up into the skies or around the earth, I see nothing passed away. When heaven and earth passes away everyone on earth will be aware of it.”
That’s because you’re taking the phrase “heaven and earth” literally. Look at the way that phrase is used in the Old Testament. It’s used as a metaphor for the land and sky of Israel and the Temple. Look it up.
A very good article.
Was it the Church to begin with?
Without the Bible people would not KNOW who the Holy Spirit IS.
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
AMEN.
Salvation is correct, no Church, no Bible.
Just the OT the Jews had.
Another way to read this is:
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.