Catholic Bible Vs. Protestant

The idea that the 7 books were added at the Council of Trent is one of the five most common myths that surround them.

St. Jerome. In his later years did indeed accept the Deuter-ocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us"

I am not saying they were added at the Council of Trent, obviously. Otherwise there would have been no contention about them in the 16th century. The argument simply is they were not deemed canonical until the Council of Trent. It is obvious they were not deemed canonical prior to this, otherwise the church would not have needed to bring the subject up in the Council of Trent.

Blessings,
MoG
 
Last edited:
I am not saying they were added at the Council of Trent, obviously. Otherwise there would have been no contention about them in the 16th century. The argument simply is they were not deemed canonical until the Council of Trent. It is obvious they were not deemed canonical prior to this, otherwise the church would not have needed to bring the subject up in the Council of Trent.

Blessings,
MoG

The Council of Trent reaffirmed the original list of 73 books, but nothing more than that. As you know, the Council of Trent would not have happened if it wasn't for Martin Luther and his rebellion against the Church. Luther took issue with the dueterocanon, but he also took issue with James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation and wanted to have those removed.


He said the following:
"The epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw."

"Then I shall make rubble of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy [James] into the stove."

"It need not surprise one to find [in Hebrews] bits of wood, hay, and straw."

"I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities."

"The book of Esther I tossed into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."


These 7 books has continued debate even after the previous councils, and you're right in saying St. Jerome had doubts prior -- though eventually his tune changed and his doubts dissolved -- and the Council of Trent was the ending point of the discussion, but it's regarded as a reaffirmation, not so much a finalization. I think we ought to be careful in how we word it otherwise history can get lost in translation, as it happens quite often.
 
The Council of Trent reaffirmed the original list of 73 books, but nothing more than that. As you know, the Council of Trent would not have happened if it wasn't for Martin Luther and his rebellion against the Church. Luther took issue with the dueterocanon, but he also took issue with James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation and wanted to have those removed.


He said the following:
"The epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw."

"Then I shall make rubble of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy [James] into the stove."

"It need not surprise one to find [in Hebrews] bits of wood, hay, and straw."

"I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities."

"The book of Esther I tossed into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."


These 7 books has continued debate even after the previous councils, and you're right in saying St. Jerome had doubts prior -- though eventually his tune changed and his doubts dissolved -- and the Council of Trent was the ending point of the discussion, but it's regarded as a reaffirmation, not so much a finalization. I think we ought to be careful in how we word it otherwise history can get lost in translation, as it happens quite often.


I respect your opinion. However, the reality is that the church universal can only reaffirm a doctrine previously affirmed by the council at the same level. Therefore, they may have reaffirmed the vague evidences of two regional conferences, but it is only in the Council of Trent that the Catholic church at large formally took a position on the Canon. If they accepted the dueterocanon prior to this, it was only informally. No matter how you cut it and if you are honest, you cannot get around this point.

God Bless,
MoG
 
I respect your opinion. However, the reality is that the church universal can only reaffirm a doctrine previously affirmed by the council at the same level. Therefore, they may have reaffirmed the vague evidences of two regional conferences, but it is only in the Council of Trent that the Catholic church at large formally took a position on the Canon. If they accepted the dueterocanon prior to this, it was only informally. No matter how you cut it and if you are honest, you cannot get around this point.

God Bless,
MoG

If you mean it was still discussed prior to Trent, then yes, but the discussion was informal, not their their finalized positions in prior councils. For instance, they still discuss today why certain passages aren't used in the liturgy, though they hold every word of the Bible to be 100% solid through the Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean they disagree with the liturgy or that the scriptures for that matter.
 
I respect your opinion. However, the reality is that the church universal can only reaffirm a doctrine previously affirmed by the council at the same level. Therefore, they may have reaffirmed the vague evidences of two regional conferences, but it is only in the Council of Trent that the Catholic church at large formally took a position on the Canon. If they accepted the dueterocanon prior to this, it was only informally. No matter how you cut it and if you are honest, you cannot get around this point.
Which is the universal council you are claiming affirmed the 66 books of the biblical literature as canon, but excluded the deuterocanonical books? Your argument appears to be: since the councils of Carthage and Hippo were only regional councils, we automatically revert the canon back to 66 books. Once again, you are simply assuming 66 books a priori. Every instance of forming the biblical canon I am aware of includes deuterocanonical books.
 
If you mean it was still discussed prior to Trent, then yes, but the discussion was informal, not their their finalized positions in prior councils. For instance, they still discuss today why certain passages aren't used in the liturgy, though they hold every word of the Bible to be 100% solid through the Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean they disagree with the liturgy or that the scriptures for that matter.

It was discussed I am sure, just not in a formal context nor in a global conference prior to Trent--to our knowledge. I think we have agreement here.

One comment in defense of Martin Luther. His comments on the book of James certainty reflected his ignorance in the early years of his theology-- God was still leading him into light. To his credit, those comments only appeared in the first edition of Luther's bible and were removed from subsequent editions. Although he did not explicitly retract his comments, perhaps he may have had second thoughts about it.

God Bless,
MoG
 
Which is the universal council you are claiming affirmed the 66 books of the biblical literature as canon, but excluded the deuterocanonical books? Your argument appears to be: since the councils of Carthage and Hippo were only regional councils, we automatically revert the canon back to 66 books. Once again, you are simply assuming 66 books a priori. Every instance of forming the biblical canon I am aware of includes deuterocanonical books.

Let me state the facts, then I will tell you what i think it implies.

Facts:
1.) a global conference did not officially establish the canon until the council of Trent a millennium in a half later.
2.) The scholars that King Jame's commissioned deemed the dueterocanon as apocropha.
3.) Some of the "church fathers" have made similar statements


Implication:

This has always been an issue even prior to the protestant reformation. This is does not stem from something Martin Luther invented. Some felt the 66 books were inspired wile others to included the dueterocanon. I would also concede that those who only concluded the 66 books were inspired were eventually in the minority but that should not be surprising.

God Bless,
MoG
 
Which is the universal council you are claiming affirmed the 66 books of the biblical literature as canon, but excluded the deuterocanonical books? Your argument appears to be: since the councils of Carthage and Hippo were only regional councils, we automatically revert the canon back to 66 books. Once again, you are simply assuming 66 books a priori. Every instance of forming the biblical canon I am aware of includes deuterocanonical books.

Sorry for the grammar errors is previous post. I am kind of in a rush. My conclusion is that anyone looking at this issue from a neutral point of view, cannot say that protestants did/do not have valid reasons for not including the Apocrypha in the canon. That is all.
 
One comment in defense of Martin Luther. His comments on the book of James certainty reflected his ignorance in the early years of his theology-- God was still leading him into light. To his credit, those comments only appeared in the first edition of Luther's bible and were removed from subsequent editions. Although he did not explicitly retract his comments, perhaps he may have had second thoughts about it.

God Bless,
MoG

While the discussion continued even after the Council of Rome in 382, it was still that council that proclaimed it official.

We can't say we know for sure how Martin Luther felt by the end of his life about these books of the New Testament other than what he said. His opinions about some of the scriptures were pretty negative. Many of Luther's followers had urged him to put them back in as they didn't agree. His comment of James being an epistle of straw and saying he'd like to "throw Jimmy into the stove" came about after he put them back in. Today though, one could still order the German Lutheran Bible that are missing these books.

But outside of that, the end of Esther, along with parts of Daniel and Jeremiah, are still lacking in Protestant versions, and these are not duetero-canonical, though Luther was responsible for that. People have also brought to question why Luther didn't discard 2 Peter as it was supposedly one of the most doubted epistle in the scriptures. I'm not the one saying this simply because I don't know (and no one really can know for sure either), but the reason why it may have been kept in despite it's doubt was because it didn't hold any contradictions to his personal theology. Again, that's not my statement -- I don't know if that's true or not -- but that is one proposed thought anyway.
 
Last edited:
Let me state the facts, then I will tell you what i think it implies.
Facts:
1.) a global conference did not officially establish the canon until the council of Trent a millennium in a half later.
2.) The scholars that King Jame's commissioned deemed the dueterocanon as apocropha.
3.) Some of the "church fathers" have made similar statements
Implication:
This has always been an issue even prior to the protestant reformation. This is does not stem from something Martin Luther invented. Some felt the 66 books were inspired wile others to included the dueterocanon. I would also concede that those who only concluded the 66 books were inspired were eventually in the minority but that should not be surprising.
I have to echo the sentiment of LysanderShapiro. Not to be boorish, but rather to be honest, I find it rather hypocritical that Protestants have a double standard when reference the apocrypha. In other words, since some of the Church Fathers have made statements that seem doubtful towards the deuterocanonical writings (even though those doubts have been unfairly exaggerated as myself and LysanderShapiro have repeatedly pointed out with textual evidence), Protestants jump at the chance to condemn them. Yet, when Origen writes that the authorship of 2 Peter is disputed, or when Martin Luther rejects Revelation and James as apocryphal, Protestants do not view that as justification for denying their entry into the biblical canon. To me this seems like a blatant double standard in which the 66 books are assumed a priori. In light of such knowledge, there seems to be no justification for not including the deuterocanonical books as a part of the Word of God.
 
I have to echo the sentiment of LysanderShapiro. Not to be boorish, but rather to be honest, I find it rather hypocritical that Protestants have a double standard when reference the apocrypha. In other words, since some of the Church Fathers have made statements that seem doubtful towards the deuterocanonical writings (even though those doubts have been unfairly exaggerated as myself and LysanderShapiro have repeatedly pointed out with textual evidence), Protestants jump at the chance to condemn them. Yet, when Origen writes that the authorship of 2 Peter is disputed, or when Martin Luther rejects Revelation and James as apocryphal, Protestants do not view that as justification for denying their entry into the biblical canon. To me this seems like a blatant double standard in which the 66 books are assumed a priori. In light of such knowledge, there seems to be no justification for not including the deuterocanonical books as a part of the Word of God.


I understand your point, but this is not necessarily my argument. I only bring up the church fathers opinion to demonstrate that this issue was not exclusively a protestant opinion and that this problem was a debate long before the reformation. There were more pertinent reasons for not including the apocrypha in the canon, some which I already mentioned. Probably the most prominent were the errors discovered therein that do not agree with the explicit meaning of the 66 books but that certainty is not the only reason.
 
Last edited:
I understand your point, but this is not necessarily my argument. I only bring up the church fathers opinion to demonstrate that this issue was not exclusively a protestant opinion and that this problem was a debate long before the reformation. There were more pertinent reasons for not including the apocrypha in the canon, some which I already mentioned. Probably the most prominent were the errors discovered therein that do not agree with the explicit meaning of the 66 books but that certainty is not the only reason.
What are the so-called errors found within the deuterocanonical books?
 
The links included the errors. The two biggies that I remember are someone died three different deaths and another said someone was alive for an event, but elsewhere it said he had died over a hundred (?) years earlier.
 
I'll do my best to address the errors themselves since I didn't do that yet.

1) Myth: Tobit endorses the use of magic

Of course not. This is a subject of miracles, not magic. We don't conclude in Exodus 12:4-7 that rubbing lamb's blood on doorways to keep death out is magic, but a subject of miracles.

2) Myth: Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Forgiveness of sins is by Grace alone, and one needs Faith to obtain grace, but faith without Works is dead (James 2:24). Tobit 12:9 is in accordance with one's works due to his faith. It's not suggesting works of one's own self and devoid of faith. Revelation 22:12 says "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done."

3) Myths about Historical Errors.

Here's what I found from the Jewish Virtue Library on the Chaldeans...
After the fall of Assyrian power in Mesopotamia, the last great group of Semitic peoples dominated the area. Suffering under the Assyrians, the city of Babylon finally rose up against its hated enemy, the city of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire, and burned it to the ground. The chief of the Babylonians was Nabopolassar; the Semites living in the northern part of Mesopotamia would never gain their independence again.

Nabopolassar was succeeded by his son, Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC). Nebuchadnezzar was the equal of all the great Mesopotamian conquerors, from Sargon onwards; he not only prevented major powers such as Egypt and Syria from making inroads on his territory, he also conquered the Phoenicians and the state of Judah (586 BC), the southern Jewish kingdom that remained after the subjugation of Israel, the northern kingdom, by the Assyrians. In order to secure the territory of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar brought Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, the two kings of Judah (in succession) and held them in Babylon. In keeping with Assyrian practice, the "New Babylonians," or Chaldeans forced a large part of the Jewish population to relocate. Numbering possibly up to 10,000, these Jewish deportees were largely upper class people and craftspeople; this deportation marks the beginning of the Exile in Jewish history.

Judith might have considered Babylon part or no different the Assyrian empire, since Babylon was part of the Assyrian empire. Beyond that, Judith could have meant the northern kingdom of Israel were Assyrians, since the Assyrian empire had first defeated it and thus changed at least part of its culture. Another thing to consider would be the Roman empire -- after the fall of the western part of it the eastern part lived on, and they called themselves Roman, and whatever they called the Roman Empire, was still the same. It was future historians that changed the naming.

The links in reading are interesting, but they are 1) going by their own fallible interpretation and 2) dismissing scripture that isn't part of the deuterocanon. It's a case of cherry-picking in order to push an agenda rather than being truthful.


I do agree that if there are truly errors, then it can't be God's Word as God's Word is without error. Exodus 20:4-5 says not to carve idols, but one might find error with Exodus 2:15 or Numbers 21:8-9 as each involve God commanding His people to make cherubim out of beaten Gold and when Moses made the bronze serpent that whomever was to look at it would live.

This is why Bible study must be done very carefully. One could easily find contradictions, but the Holy Spirit isn't one to contradict or confuse.
 
Last edited:
The links included the errors. The two biggies that I remember are someone died three different deaths and another said someone was alive for an event, but elsewhere it said he had died over a hundred (?) years earlier.
Can you be a little more specific, because I am not sure what passages you are referring to?
 
the point in Luk 4:16-30 is akin to Jesus being on the cross and them saying, then save yourself, because you are the one needing it (hypocrite insinuation) .. as in the Apocrypha story, Adam was the one who was giving advice and was called a hypocrite .. thus Jesus' reference to it was saying that they probably will cite that, meaning implying Jesus was a hypocrite as well ..

When the wives of Lamech heard the decision of Adam, that they were to continue to live with their husband, they turned upon him, saying, "O physician, heal thine own lameness!" They were alluding to the fact that he himself had been living apart from his wife since the death of Abel, for he had said, "Why should I beget children, if it is but to expose them to death?"

yep, Jesus cited Apocrypha
 
Paul quoted secular poets in his Sermon on Mars Hill,
Act 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

Act 26:14 “And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
The phrase “kick against the pricks” “comes from Aeschylus (525–456 B.C.), Agamemnon, line 1624--or lines 2341 & 2342 at http://classics.mit.edu/Aeschylus/agamemnon.pl.txt (see Stewart Custer, Witness to Christ, BJU Press, p.164).

1Cr 15:33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”
= Epimenides

Tts 1:12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
= Menander
 
I am a Protestant. Maybe I can help some here. Originally the early translations did have the apocrypha in them! Even the vaunted KJV did have the apocrypha in it! Now not all protestants get along... seems to me like hardly any! That is one reason for so many versions of the Bible. IF you really want to get into a bible debate there is the KJV ONLY out there. God Help us all with them. Don't even try to talk to them. The NET New English Translation came from the Dallas Seminary of a very decidedly modern Baptist background. The NIV came from a meeting between the Trinity College and Reformed Church. I would probably be chastised by my protestant brethren, I also have a couple of Catholic Bibles and really enjoy them. I do like the Catholic study bible.
 
Top