Missing books in Bible?

[Sweet Pea]

I've always wondered about the differences between what Protestant Christians and Catholics believe.

Why does the Catholic Bible have additional books? Did the Roman Catholic Church add these, or did the protestants remove them? Why? How do we know these books aren't really supposed to be there?

 

[SolaGratia]

The Roman Catholic Church canonized the Aprocrypha at the Council of Trent in 1546. Prior to that it had not been considered scripture.

This occurred shortly after the Reformation, and was done in response to the Reformation. The Apocrypha affirms certain doctrines such as purgatory and prayer for the dead that can't be defended from God's word. Also, by adding books to the Bible, the Roman church was asserting that it had authority over the Bible (which, of course, would be necessary to add to it).

 

[Dodo_David]

The Roman Catholic Church canonized the Aprocrypha at the Council of Trent in 1546. Prior to that it had not been considered scripture.

This occurred shortly after the Reformation, and was done in response to the Reformation. The Apocrypha affirms certain doctrines such as purgatory and prayer for the dead that can't be defended from God's word. Also, by adding books to the Bible, the Roman church was asserting that it had authority over the Bible (which, of course, would be necessary to add to it).

This is correct. The current Roman Catholic canon did not exist until after the Reformation started.
So, Protestants did not remove anything.

 

[Sweet Pea]

A Catholic response I got (elsewhere) was that all Christians accepted the 27 NT books and 46 OT books until the early 1500's AD. Then, Martin Luther rejected the 7 books because they supported Catholic teachings that he disagreed with... so he put them in the appendix. Later, the 7 books were removed from the KJV. The Catholic Church supposedly never changed the books... it was the protestants.

I've also read there are many errors in these books so they cannot be the Word of God (Protestant POV).

 

[rockytopva]

I have tried to read other books that did not make the bible... The book of Enoch for example and did not get anything out of them interesting.

 

[FHII]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the Apochrypha was part of the 1611 KJV and remained so until until 1885 according to one website I just checked. Why it was removed is subject to at least two theories: 1. It should've never been a part of the Bible in the first place, and 2. Printers removed it to cut down on shipping costs.

I have a copy of a reprinted 1611 KJV, and a separate copy of the Apochrypha.... I've only read half of it, and I found it interesting. I don't have a solid answer as to whether it should or shouldn't be included other than leaving it up to God's will be done. That could work both ways, of course, because we can still get those books.

There are other books mentioned in the Bible: The Book of Jasher and Enoch come to mind. There is even mention of an Epistle written by Paul to the Leodiceans! Speaking of Enoch.... Rockytopva: you didn't find that interesting?!?!? Some people question it's validity, but I don't know how you wouldn't find it interesting. I'm not faulting you for lack of a better term.... Just a difference in opinions, I suppose.

In any sense, here's that website I referred to earlier:

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

 

[HammerStone]

Even the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has a different cannon from even the Catholic Church, will teach that the apocryphal books are something to be regarded as not exactly the same as Scripture. (If you want to argue solely based on who used what first, they would win, FYI.) I have a couple copies of the apocryphal books with the KJV and NRSV, but I've only forayed into a couple of the books myself.

I view them as more historical (like Macabees) or useful for cultural insight versus being the inspired word of God.

 

[Sweet Pea]

I have tried to read other books that did not make the bible... The book of Enoch for example and did not get anything out of them interesting.

I just read on a website that they are full of errors and that is why they are not included today. Maybe that's why you didn't find them interesting.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the Apochrypha was part of the 1611 KJV and remained so until until 1885 according to one website I just checked. Why it was removed is subject to at least two theories: 1. It should've never been a part of the Bible in the first place, and 2. Printers removed it to cut down on shipping costs.

I have a copy of a reprinted 1611 KJV, and a separate copy of the Apochrypha.... I've only read half of it, and I found it interesting. I don't have a solid answer as to whether it should or shouldn't be included other than leaving it up to God's will be done. That could work both ways, of course, because we can still get those books.

There are other books mentioned in the Bible: The Book of Jasher and Enoch come to mind. There is even mention of an Epistle written by Paul to the Leodiceans! Speaking of Enoch.... Rockytopva: you didn't find that interesting?!?!? Some people question it's validity, but I don't know how you wouldn't find it interesting. I'm not faulting you for lack of a better term.... Just a difference in opinions, I suppose.

In any sense, here's that website I referred to earlier:

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

Wouldn't that be wrong to remove it unless they were not supposed to be there? That's why I started the thread. Before I read they had errors, I was concerned we were missing something.

I definitely think that is interesting! Thanks for the link.

Even the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has a different cannon from even the Catholic Church, will teach that the apocryphal books are something to be regarded as not exactly the same as Scripture. (If you want to argue solely based on who used what first, they would win, FYI.) I have a couple copies of the apocryphal books with the KJV and NRSV, but I've only forayed into a couple of the books myself.

I view them as more historical (like Macabees) or useful for cultural insight versus being the inspired word of God.

I did not know the Eastern Orthodox Church had a different cannon than the RCC. Do you feel the Eastern Orthodox church was the first church?

 

[day]

A Catholic response I got (elsewhere) was that all Christians accepted the 27 NT books and 46 OT books until the early 1500's AD. Then, Martin Luther rejected the 7 books because they supported Catholic teachings that he disagreed with... so he put them in the appendix. Later, the 7 books were removed from the KJV. The Catholic Church supposedly never changed the books... it was the protestants.

I've also read there are many errors in these books so they cannot be the Word of God (Protestant POV).

I have read that the Jews did not have an established canon until about 100 AD but instead different groups used different sets of texts in their synagogues. The Catholic canon reflects the texts used by one of the earlier groups and the Protestant bible reflects the final canon from 100 AD.

The problem I find with the book of Tobit is that the angel Raphael lies about who he is, stating he is a relative of the senior Tobit. Also using fish parts to chase away evil spirits and to heal blindness is another thing. I don't see any problem with the books of Maccabees or Judith, which are historical, but of course I am not an expert by any means.

The books that did not make it into either Catholic or Protestant Bibles include Enoch, Jasher (both quoted in the NT) and Jubilees. I am currently reading Enoch. It was supposedly written by Enoch before the flood, but it refers to places in Israel and to "Gentiles", none of which existed in Enoch's time so it was definitely written by someone closer to the exile than to the Flood.

There are also several books that did not make it into any New Testament canon including the Letters of Clement, Epistle of Paul to Laodicea, Letters of Ignatius, Letter of Polycarp, Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. All of the Old and New Testament Apocrypha can be purchased from Christian book sources.

 

[clark thompson]

They were apart of some older bibles up until the Catholic made them apart of the cannon at which point the Protestants took them out. They were originally translated not because they were viewed as inspired but to show how people were some years before Christ because that is when they were written.

 

[Dodo_David]

I did not know the Eastern Orthodox Church had a different cannon than the RCC. Do you feel the Eastern Orthodox church was the first church?

Yep, the Eastern Orthodox Church has its own canon, and that branch of the universal Church has been around since Jesus founded the universal Church.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I have always understood that the Hebrews themselves did not include the apocryphal books in their scriptures ... and that is the reason many Protestants did not include them either.

I also understand the doctrine of Purgatory comes from the apocryphal books used by the Roman Catholics and that has always been a bone of contention for Protestants.

 

[Mungo]

The "apocrypha", more properly called the "deuterocanonical" books were canonised when the canon was formed at the end of the 4th century. That is why they are also part of the Orthodox Canon.

They were in the Bible that Luther had before he removed them.

Trent did not ADD them.

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.(Canon 4, Council of Trent).

The old Latin Vulgate edition is the translation of Jerome at the beginning of the 5th century.

If you look at the list of OT books they are all there, although some of the names have changed.

I have always understood that the Hebrews themselves did not include the apocryphal books in their scriptures ... and that is the reason many Protestants did not include them either.

They were all in the Greek LXX which was the commonly used version at the time of Jesus, both in Palestine and the Diaspora

I also understand the doctrine of Purgatory comes from the apocryphal books used by the Roman Catholics and that has always been a bone of contention for Protestants.

No, the doctrine of Purgatory does not come from the "apocryphal" books.

Yep, the Eastern Orthodox Church has its own canon, and that branch of the universal Church has been around since Jesus founded the universal Church.

The Orthodox have some minor additions - Maccabees 3 & 4 + the Prayer of Manessah. Otherwise its the same as the Catholic canon (as far as I am aware). And the Catholic Church has been around since Jesus founded the universal Church!

 

[Dodo_David]

Folks, the books of the Protestant canon are accepted by all branches of the universal Church as being Scripture.

If we use what all branches accept as Scripture, then we do well. ^_^

 

[HammerStone]

^ To quote Cousin Eddie from the timeless classic that is Christmas Vacation: "Bingo."

The Eastern Orthodox (EO) Church would arguably be the oldest branch of the three, so if you base your argument on tradition it would be the logical end of trying to find the closest thing to how Christianity was likely practiced in the first centuries of this side of Christ's birth. So yes, EO would be the closest thing to the early practices of Christianity in one sense.

However, it would be different from the very first instances in the church in the Bible in that there were obviously house churches and small gatherings of persecuted believers.

With that said, expression of Christianity in worshipping the Father in both spirit and truth would not be limited to a particular style of worship. Likewise, the canon of Scripture diverges for the three branches. One is safest sticking to the common denominator (IMHO) and only treating the other books as not quite the same all the way to not divinely inspired. I do not believe our Lord would muddy the waters with an unclear canon.

 

[Mungo]

Folks, the books of the Protestant canon are accepted by all branches of the universal Church as being Scripture.

If we use what all branches accept as Scripture, then we do well. ^_^

Why should Catholics accept a cut down version of the Bible rather than the one that we have used for 2,000 years?

If some group of Christians decided to cut out some more books of the Bible should we all accept that?

Your suggestion is not logical.

I do not believe our Lord would muddy the waters with an unclear canon.

It's Protestants that have muddied the waters not the Lord.

 

[Quantrill]

Why should Catholics accept a cut down version of the Bible rather than the one that we have used for 2,000 years?

If some group of Christians decided to cut out some more books of the Bible should we all accept that?

Your suggestion is not logical.


It's Protestants that have muddied the waters not the Lord.

Protestants did not remove any books of the Bible. The apocyphal books were rejected by the Jews whose canon was closed by the time of Christ. The Old Testament was closed.

There is nothing to prove that the Septuigent in Christ's day contained the Apocrypha. You only can trace it in the Septuigent back to the 4th century A.D.

The reason Jerome added the apocrypha to his translation was at otheres request. Jerome rejcted the Apocrypha as inspired by God.

You find the Apocrypha in the Alexandrian Canon of Scripture, which is far away from Israel. And, Alexandria was affected by the worlds philosophies of its day and the believers there were equally affected. Men such as Philo who tried to merge Greek philosophy with the Scriptures.

Read the Jews Old Testament today, the Tanakh. It is the same as the Protestants Old Testament in content.

Quantrill

 

[Mungo]

Protestants did not remove any books of the Bible. The apocyphal books were rejected by the Jews whose canon was closed by the time of Christ. The Old Testament was closed.

There is nothing to prove that the Septuigent in Christ's day contained the Apocrypha. You only can trace it in the Septuigent back to the 4th century A.D.

The reason Jerome added the apocrypha to his translation was at otheres request. Jerome rejcted the Apocrypha as inspired by God.

You find the Apocrypha in the Alexandrian Canon of Scripture, which is far away from Israel. And, Alexandria was affected by the worlds philosophies of its day and the believers there were equally affected. Men such as Philo who tried to merge Greek philosophy with the Scriptures.

Read the Jews Old Testament today, the Tanakh. It is the same as the Protestants Old Testament in content.

Quantrill

The Jews did not close the canon until sometime in the second century. That the Jews rejected some of the books that were already accepted by Christians does not mean that Christians should then reject them. Remember the Jews rejected Christ so of what value are their decisions? The Jews do not decide the Christians Bible.

It was not up to Jerome to decide the Canon. The canon of the OT was decided before Jerome did his translation.

 

[Quantrill]

The Jews did not close the canon until sometime in the second century. That the Jews rejected some of the books that were already accepted by Christians does not mean that Christians should then reject them. Remember the Jews rejected Christ so of what value are their decisions? The Jews do not decide the Christians Bible.

It was not up to Jerome to decide the Canon. The canon of the OT was decided before Jerome did his translation.

Second Century B.C. maybe. Which means the Palestinian Canon inculded what we have in the Old Testament today. It was not the duty of Christians to determine the Canon of the Old Testament. That already existed and was closed.

What value is the Jews decisions concerning their Canon? Plenty. Even though they rejected their Messiah, Jesus was clear in that they were correct in their acceptance of the writings that they believed to be inspiredd by God.

Matt.23:1-3 " Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;...."

And Paul said in Rom. 3:1-2 " What advantage then hath the Jew? Much every way: chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

It also wasn't up to those who told Jerome to translate the apocrypha to decide which books are canonical or not.

Indeed the Old Testament Canon had already been decided by the time of Christ.

Quantrill

 

[Mungo]

Second Century B.C. maybe. Which means the Palestinian Canon inculded what we have in the Old Testament today. It was not the duty of Christians to determine the Canon of the Old Testament. That already existed and was closed.

What value is the Jews decisions concerning their Canon? Plenty. Even though they rejected their Messiah, Jesus was clear in that they were correct in their acceptance of the writings that they believed to be inspiredd by God.

Matt.23:1-3 " Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;...."

And Paul said in Rom. 3:1-2 " What advantage then hath the Jew? Much every way: chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

It also wasn't up to those who told Jerome to translate the apocrypha to decide which books are canonical or not.

Indeed the Old Testament Canon had already been decided by the time of Christ.

Quantrill

No it wasn't closed until into the second century. At the time of Jesus there were disputes about what was accepted. There wasn't even one version of Judaism but many sects. The Sadducees only accepted the first 5 books - the Torah.

Most Jews did not read Hebrew. The Septuagint was the most commonly read version.

Jesus told them to listen to what the Scribes and Pharisees taught not to read books. You see the Jews were not sola scriptura - another Protestant error. Jesus told them to listen to those who had authority to teach.

It was up to the Christian Church to decide which books it accepted into its canon.

The Septuagint and it's books were accepted from the beginning but the earliest formal canonisation we have was at the Council of Rome (382) when Pope Damasus issued a decree listing all the books that we (Catholics) accept now - OT & NT. They were all approved at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419) as well.

Pope Damasus asked Jerome to make a Latin translation that became know as the Vulgate, published in 405 AD. That is the version that Martin Luther inherited. He removed some of the OT books, and even tried to remove some of the NT books that had been accepted as canonical, calling James an "epistle of straw" because it contradicted his "faith alone" belief