Why is it that Catholic's have an extra 7 books in the Bible than other Christians? Where did these books come from and who wrote them? Whey don't other religions accept them as part of the Bible? HELP

-- Rhonda (rhondad007@aol.com), April 21, 2004

Answers

Response to why do Catholic's have 76 extra books in their Bible?

Go to this thread for an answer

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Response to why do Catholic's have 76 extra books in their Bible?

Catholics have the complete Bible because they haven't tampered with the Word of God. There were 73 books in the original Bible, and there still are. Protestants are missing 7 books because their founder deleted 7 books which contained teachings contrary to his new doctrines and traditions. He also fully intended to delete 3 New Testament books for the same reason. If he had his way Protestants would be missing 10 books of God's Holy Word instead of just 7. But fortunately his followers wouldn't hear of throwing out portions of the New Testament. Of course that leaves them in the awkward position of claiming that salvation is by faith alone, while the letter of James tells us repeatedly that works are essential to salvation. James was one of the books Luther intended to delete, for obvious reasons.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 21, 2004.

Response to why do Catholic's have 76 extra books in their Bible?

The Bible or Canon of Scripture, was not put together by anyone in any kind of formal manner until 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. The reason for this was that until Constantine - the Emperor of Rome, came along and protected the early Christians, they remained underground and in seclusion for fear of persecution. Once the early Christians felt safe and free to associate openly, debate soon sprang up about what was considered to be God’s Holy Word and what was not, from all the loose writings that had been handed down from the time of Christ. Other notable Books at the time were excluded from the Bible, The Gospel of Thomas and Barnabas’ Epistle to name but a few, as not having been seen to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There are 73 Books in the original (Catholic) version of the Bible - 46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. St. Jerome and his fellow monks put together the first “official” Bible in Latin (the language of the day) and today we know it as the Vulgate Bible. These 73 Books withstood 1100 years of scrutiny until the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism. This new movement saw a need to distance itself from Catholicism and what better way to do so, than to “amend” God’s Holy Word - which at the time, was considered to be a pillar of the Catholic faith. As a result, 7 Books were dropped from the Canon of Scripture - Tobit, Judith, Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and Maccabees, First & Second. In addition, some parts of the Book of Daniel were omitted to reflect what we now recognize today as the foundation for most Protestant Bibles.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 22, 2004.

Response to why do Catholic's have 76 extra books in their Bible?

Being Hinest thouhg, as noted on other threads, Luther was not alone in his distuerst of the additional books. Many, long before him, like Jerome, themselves did not consider the books scripture. Indeed, the Jewish Bibles today lack these additional books, as we discussed on other threads as well, and yes, I know the Gopsles and other Chrisain wriings arent in the Jewish Bibles, this is not irrelevant, namey because the additional books are Old Testement.

The additional books where never Universlaly accepted by the Jews, indeed most rejected them. They where nto found in the origional Jewish Scriptures, rather they where found only in he Septuegent.

Many thought them spurious, and htye whwer eincluded only based on soem.

Likewise, ubtil 1545-1546 at the counsil of Trent, these books where even disputed by Catholics.Trent settled the matter.

So no, it was nto simpley Luther amendign the word of God just to suit his ends and takign boks out of the Origional Biblke, so please be more careful in the approach to facts in future.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 22, 2004.

It doesn't matter whether some individuals had problems with official Church teaching. What matters is what the Church taught. That is what the Bible defines as truth; and the Church has continuously taught from the year 397 until the present day that the Holy Bible consists of 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. Anyone who claimed or claims otherwise is simply wrong, by definition.

What sets Luther apart is his obvious motive in trashing God's Word. He specifically threw out those Old Testament books and attempted to throw out those New Testament books which contained the strongest teaching against some of the new traditions he was proposing in opposition to genuine Christian doctrine.

The question of what the Jews thought about these seven books is utterly irrelevant to the whole issue. You either believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to infallibly select those writings God wanted included in the Bible - and nothing else - or you don't believe that. If you believe that, you know there are 73 inspired books of scripture. If you don't believe that, you have absolutely no way of knowing what is scripture and what is not, since the divinely inspired compilation of the Canon through the Church is the ONLY way anyone has of identifying scripture. This occurred at Carthage in 397, not at Trent. The Canon was absolutely settled for all time when the Council of Carthage closed. Trent simply reaffirmed what was already infallibly decided. It could not have done otherwise.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 22, 2004.

Wrong,

Sorry, but you're, well, wrong. There was NO official canon for Christians until the Christian church (the Catholic church) decided on one. This was done in the a.d. 300s at the councils of Carthage and Hippo. If people in the middle ages deleted books, they are deviating from the Christian canon, but no one believed in your abbreviated bible from the time the Real Bible was formed in the fourth century to the time of Luther. Unfortunately, many people bought in to his lies, hopefully the Lord will forgive them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 22, 2004.

"Wrong's" post has been removed. She is actually "Faith" who has been prohibited from posting in the forum.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 22, 2004.

As Scott Hahn says, it comes down to authority. We can't all be an authority, that's why Jesus established the Church whose leadership is guided by the Holy Spirit.

-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), April 22, 2004.

Well, Frank,

there was already a canon even before 381 AD. Even before 325 AD. Even 200 AD.

What he have in the west is the finalized Canon for Western European Catholics by 397 AD on Pope Damasus list.

Not for Eastern Catholics or orthodox, Syrians, Ethiopians, or Copts.

Excerp taken from this site:

Muratorian Canon

Look at the Muratorian Canon before 200 AD on the New Testament. The Muratorian Fragment (about A.D. 170). The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books, discovered in 1740 by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, in a seventh century manuscript. It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. The list itself is dated to about 170 because its author refers to the episcopate of Pius I of Rome (died 157) as recent. He mentions only two epistles of John, without describing them. The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which "some of us will not allow to be read in church." The English text below is from Metzger.(a)

. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed them in his narrative. The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician..... The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, one of the disciples. .....What marvel is it then, if John so consistently mentions these particular points also in his epistles, saying about himself, What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you? ....Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For "Most excellent Theophilus" Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence, .....since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, nevertheless speaks to all. Paul also wrote out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to further the heresy of Marcion,(h) and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church. For it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted in the catholic Church; and the book of Wisdom, written by the friends(i) of Solomon in his honour. We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter,(j) though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote "The Shepherd" very recently,(k) in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome.(l) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; ....

So there are even books accepted then which are not accepted now.

Even Jerome made a distiction among the Old Testament Books.

Even in his Latin Translation he chose the Hebrew to the Greek Septuagint that Augustine got upset about it.

The Christian Yahwist The Man of Yahweh The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 22, 2004.

I wonder how and why the original question that mentions SEVEN extra books became SEVENTY SIX?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 25, 2004.

Elpidio,

Look at your text again and rethink what you said. You said there was a CANON before 200 AD. Do you know what the definition of a canon even is?? If you have a canon of Scripture, that means it is "'closed", and none are taken out or added in as Revelation says. It ALSO means nothing contained within are disputed among the Scriptures. But read what this document says; the Apolcaypse of Peter was still in dispute and was not read in the Catholic Church at times. This by the very nature is not a canon. It a list of books thought to be inspired, but it is NOT a Canon. If it was, that sentence would not be present. The Synod of Carthage in 393 and the reaffirmation of Hippo and Trent (397 and 1540s AD) made the Canon. Read Eusebius' History of the Church and he shows that the Fathers and Christians of AD 170 certainly had some writings they held to; but there was NO Canon; that is, not a fixed and closed set of books that none are taken out or added. The historical fact that the Apocalypse of Peter was taken out is proof of the lack of a Canon at the time of this document

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 25, 2004.

Look at your text again and rethink what you said. You said there was a CANON before 200 AD. Do you know what the definition of a canon even is?? If you have a canon of Scripture, that means it is "'closed", and none are taken out or added in as Revelation says.

{Not true. Chrisyaisn added books tot he Cannon, the Jews had a Canon of Scirptures.

Likewise, the Mormon Chruch still, on rare occassion, adds a volume if Scripture, the last beign the Official Declaration 2 in 1978. Their is such a thing as an Open Cannon, and Cannon does not men "Closed", Closed Cannon means closed.}-Zarove

It ALSO means nothing contained within are disputed among the Scriptures.

{True.}-Zarove

But read what this document says; the Apolcaypse of Peter was still in dispute and was not read in the Catholic Church at times. This by the very nature is not a canon. It a list of books thought to be inspired, but it is NOT a Canon. If it was, that sentence would not be present.

{Yes, for the most part true.}-Zarove

The Synod of Carthage in 393 and the reaffirmation of Hippo and Trent (397 and 1540s AD) made the Canon.

{Not so. The Jebrews made the Cannon. The christoans added the 27 Books of the Old testement, and the Deuterocannonical works where in dispute until Trent. ( Catholcis love to say reaffirmed, btu all sources I have read say this si when they where officially made cannonoical.)}-Zarove

Read Eusebius' History of the Church and he shows that the Fathers and Christians of AD 170 certainly had some writings they held to; but there was NO Canon;

{Their was the Hebrew Cannon.}-Zarove

that is, not a fixed and closed set of books that none are taken out or added.

{Again, Cannon doestnt mean fixed and closed. Cannon simpley means official. Cannon is defined as " Official writings, declared authoritative", nohtign in the definition says " Closed and incapable of beign added to." Again, as a reference, the Mormon Chruch has an open Cannon. The term Open Cannon woudl be Oxymoronic if Cannon was defined as CLOSED as well as FIXED. Rather, cannon merley means official and recognised. It does not eman Closed in any dictionary.}- Zarove

The historical fact that the Apocalypse of Peter was taken out is proof of the lack of a Canon at the time of this document

{Not nessisarily, you ar elwaping to conclusions.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 25, 2004.

Odd that Luther's German translation of the Bible includes all of the so called missing books. He placed them at the back of the Bible, but he included them.

-- John (johndwmail@yahoo.com), May 06, 2004.

The Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. defined the Canon of 73 inspired books of Sacred Scripture, once and for all time. Trent REaffirmed the Canon precisely as Carthage had defined it.

The only way any person can know what is the Word of God with certainty is the infallible pronouncement of the Catholic Church at the end of the fourth century. If the Church made seven erors in its discernment of inspired writings, then there is every reason to suspect that it may have made additional mistakes; and therefore no-one on earth has any valid way of knowing what is Scripture and what is not. To reject seven of the books defined as Sacred Scripture at Carthage is to reject the authority of those who defined it; and to reject their authority is to reject the authority of the entire book they compiled. It's all or nothing. You accept the Scriptures as defined, or you have no basis for accepting any Scripture. Especially when you consider that the very man who threw out the seven sacred books had every intention of throwing out three New Testament books as well, and for the same reason. They contained strong teaching which directly opposed his new doctrines and traditions.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 23, 2004.

Peter we usually give credit where credit is due. Your entire post matches an identical one found here:

http://www.letusreason.org/RC17.htm

Please make reference to the source if you intend to copy and paste in the future.

Moderator

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 23, 2004.