The Missing Books of the Bible (Ecumenical)

CERC ^ | FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

[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.

[UCANSEE2]

How shall we discuss this in an ecumenical way, when the article itself disparages non-Roman Bibles and extols Roman Bibles?

I would suggest that we first consider that the true importance of any Bible is the MESSAGE, not the individual words.

Those who insist that their particular Bible is THE exact correct one have missed the point altogether.

There are many versions, and the apocrypha and the more of them one reads, the more one gets the MESSAGE.

All these different BIBLES, all these different INTERPRETATIONS are not a 'problem' with the Bible, they are the answer.

Why? Because, for each of us, the MESSAGE we get from the BIBLE is DIFFERENT, because GOD knew we would each have different NEEDS.

After all, if God were to speak to you (which He does all the time, but few listen because they don't like what he is saying), he would do so in a language that you understood. And he would tell you what YOU and only YOU need to hear.

The Bible is no different.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

If the “message” is different for everyone, does it mean that those who wrest the scriptures to deny the Trinity and promote heresies are “correct” in some relative way?

[Salvation]

The Catholics had the Bible first. So what is the problem?

[Salvation]

Are you saying that all Scripture is NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit? First time I heard that one.

[Salvation]

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

The Missing Books of the Bible (Ecumenical)
Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?
The Canon of Scripture [Ecumenical]
To understand Bible, one must understand its nature, pope says
Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ
Apostolic Authority and the Selection of the Gospels (Ecumenical)
The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
How Rediscovering the “Plot” of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization
The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[verga]

The OPINIONS of individual Catholics mean nothing. It only matters when the college of cardinals speak officially as a group or the Pope speaks ex-cathedra (Which has only happened 4 times in history IIRC). The important thing to remember is that even though each of them may have disagreed with something they submitted themselves humbly and accepted the formal teaching of the Church. The most telling is the matter of Jerome. He did not like several of the books but submitted himself and translated them from the Hebrew and Greek into Latin. To paraphrase Augustine, Rome spoke and the matter was settled.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“The OPINIONS of individual Catholics mean nothing.”

---

What’s ironic about this is that the RCC’s opinion today is that the apocrypha, though part of their “scripture,” aren’t even true anyway, unlike when they made them holy scripture after a millenium where the majority opinion in the West was the exact opposite.

For example, from the Vatican website introduction to Judith:

“Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail. The story was written as a pious reflection on the meaning of the yearly Passover observance. It draws its inspiration from the Exodus narrative (especially Exodus 14:31) and from the texts of Isaiah and the Psalms portraying the special intervention of God for the preservation of Jerusalem. The theme of God’s hand as the agent of this providential activity, reflected of old in the hand of Moses and now in the hand of Judith, is again exemplified at a later time in Jewish synagogue art. God’s hand reaching down from heaven appears as part of the scene at Dura-Europos (before A.D. 256) in paintings of the Exodus, of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22), and of Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones (Eze 37).”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PCP.HTM

And another, also official Catholic source:

“Judith is a dramatic fictional narrative...” “Because Judith is fiction replete with historical and geographical inaccuracies, it is difficult to date its composition.” (New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Nihil Obstat: Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., Imprimatur: Reverend William J. Kane, Vicar General, Diocese of Washington)

Thus, you want me to believe that Pope Gregory the 1st was in disagreement with his own religion, that the RCC has the right to correct previous Popes and Bishops and create new doctrines, and then has the right to discard those doctrines later on!

As for your paraphrase of Augustine. It would have to be a paraphrase, because there wasn’t even a universal head of Catholicism until Boniface, after Gregory, who petitioned the emperor for the right to call himself such. Gregory explicitly denied such a title, and even asserted that the headship of western Christianity was shared equally by the Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The Catholics had the Bible first. So what is the problem?”

Salvation, I’m not sure why you would even believe that, but go ahead.

[Salvation]

What Bible was printed on the Gutenberg press?

Careful with your answer.....LOL!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Salvation,
I sure wish you the absolute best.

[verga]

You so silly.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

And you’re so easy to silence!

[RegulatorCountry]

The spirit of ecumenism appears somewhat lacking in your reply.

[SoConPubbie]

Ping!

Books included in the Bible Ping!

Thought this might interest you two.

[BipolarBob]

"The OPINIONS of individual Catholics mean nothing."

Why couldn't you have stopped with this one sentence?

[BipolarBob]

The Catholics had the Bible first. So what is the problem?

The Jews had the Bible first. Jesus was a Jew, the Disciples were Jews and Paul was a Jew.

[Salvation]

**Paul was a Jew**

Not after he had his encounter with Jesus. The Bible tells us of all he went to Ananias and then immediately began to preach Jesus Christ.

[BipolarBob]

That didn’t change his Jewishness. Your response makes no sense.

[Salvation]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2794188/posts?page=3#3

The answer about the Gutenberg Press.

[Jvette]

Just curious as to how you get that either of those quotes means that Judith is not considered Scripture by the authors.