MERGED: Questions for Catholics on how we got our Bible

[Publisher]

The Apocrypha/Dueterocanonical books were part of the Septuagint(LXX), a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures which the early church used as their Bible. Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox use the complete LXX as the early church did. The Council of Trent "codified" what constituted the Old Testament for Catholics, mostly in reaction to Luther's challenge that the Apoc/Duet books were not scripture since the Jews did not use them as part of their canon.

Until the mid 19th century Protestant Bibles included them as an "appendix" or between the Testaments....most Protestants felt they were profitable to read, but not to be used as scritpure.....I believe the Anglican/Episcopalian body of Christians has Apoc/Duet references in their Lectionaries.

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Makko52

I have been studying on the Apocrypha and have a question for my Catholic friends.

Is it true that the Apocrypha were not included as Scripture until the Council of Trent.
from 1540 to 1547 where it was made canonical? ( I know not all of the books of the Apocrypha are considered Holy Scripture)

I would appreciate your thoughts and references!

No this is not true. The Holy Bible, as approved by more than one council consisted of 73 books.

Peace
James

[Wandile]

Originally Posted by Makko52

I have been studying on the Apocrypha and have a question for my Catholic friends.

Is it true that the Apocrypha were not included as Scripture until the Council of Trent.
from 1540 to 1547 where it was made canonical? ( I know not all of the books of the Apocrypha are considered Holy Scripture)

I would appreciate your thoughts and references!

No this is not true at all.

The Deuterocanonicals (What you know as Apocrypha) were always in the Bible. When the bible was being compiled at the Early Councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome, the Old Testament listed was identical to that which is in the Catholic Bible today(although some books went under different names).

Secondly the Early Church (from the time of the Apostles to 600 AD) used the Septuagint as their scripture. The Septuagint is the Old Testament used in Catholic Bibles today as the early Church was the Catholic Church.

Thirdly, the Deuterocanonicals have always been in the Bible. It was the protestants who took them out.

[gus]

Originally Posted by Makko52

I have been studying on the Apocrypha and have a question for my Catholic friends.

Is it true that the Apocrypha were not included as Scripture until the Council of Trent.
from 1540 to 1547 where it was made canonical? ( I know not all of the books of the Apocrypha are considered Holy Scripture)

I would appreciate your thoughts and references!

Look at the on line Gutenburg Bible. 15th century

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by Wandile

No this is not true at all.

The Deuterocanonicals (What you know as Apocrypha) were always in the Bible. When the bible was being compiled at the Early Councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome, the Old Testament listed was identical to that which is in the Catholic Bible today(although some books went under different names).

Secondly the Early Church (from the time of the Apostles to 600 AD) used the Septuagint as their scripture. The Septuagint is the Old Testament used in Catholic Bibles today as the early Church was the Catholic Church.Thirdly, the Deuterocanonicals have always been in the Bible. It was the protestants who took them out.

Not quite accurate...not all the OT books in the LXX are used by Catholics in their Bibles.

[CHRISTINE77]

Originally Posted by Publisher

Not quite accurate...not all the OT books in the LXX are used by Catholics in their Bibles.

Which ones aren't? Just curious.

[Wandile]

Originally Posted by Publisher

Not quite accurate...not all the OT books in the LXX are used by Catholics in their Bibles.

I already know this. But the Catholic Bible does use the Septuagint. It just doesn't accept every book as inspired e.g. The 1st and 2nd Book of Esdras.

[Makko52]

I was looking at the concil of trent
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session IV - Celebrated on the eighth day of April, 1546 under Pope Paul III

"It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]"
"They are the following:"

"Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second."

Does that mean that it was added? help me out

[davidmlamb]

Originally Posted by Makko52

I have been studying on the Apocrypha and have a question for my Catholic friends.

Is it true that the Apocrypha were not included as Scripture until the Council of Trent.
from 1540 to 1547 where it was made canonical? ( I know not all of the books of the Apocrypha are considered Holy Scripture)

I would appreciate your thoughts and references!

The Council of Trent only confirmed what every other Church Council confirmed. The canon of scripture was first codified at the council of Rome in 382 AD and then at subsequent councils, Hippo 392 AD, Carthage 397 AD, Florence 750 AD....and the list goes on. This is all verifiable through Christian antiquities and records kept from the Church Councils. The truth is it was Luther and the Reformation that tore these books out of scripture. Luther did not even believe James was inspired and called it "an Epistle full of straws." If it was not for Luther's contemporaries Protestants would only have 25 books in the NT.

As others have pointed out Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint Scriptures which contained many more books considered scripture in which neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Church codified. A couple of these books are mentioned in the book of Jude and they are the Assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch. Jude cites these as scripture yet they cannot be found in any bible today. When I was a Protestant I read the book of Sirach and Wisdom and I fell in love with them both being convinced they were inspired. You should read these two books and ask yourself "Why they are not inspired?"

Peace,
David

[andrewstx]

Originally Posted by Makko52

I was looking at the concil of trent
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session IV - Celebrated on the eighth day of April, 1546 under Pope Paul III

"It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]"
"They are the following:"

"Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second."

Does that mean that it was added? help me out

The deuterocanonical books were not added at all, they were always there.

What happend at Trent as in all the councils was they ruled as a reponce to a controversy of the day.
The canon before then was taken as granted, the entire bible, but when some of the Protestants began removing books from the bible, Trent had to respond by making the DCs officially defined as canon.

This same thing happened in all the Ecumenical councils, controversies erupted and the church had to speak making things already believed official.

[Makko52]

Originally Posted by andrewstx

The deuterocanonical books were not added at all, they were always there.

What happend at Trent as in all the councils was they ruled as a reponce to a controversy of the day.
The canon before then was taken as granted, the entire bible, but when some of the Protestants began removing books from the bible, Trent had to respond by making the DCs officially defined as canon.

This same thing happened in all the Ecumenical councils, controversies erupted and the church had to speak making things already believed official.

AH ok thank you for clarifying that for me! i appreciate the The Catholic Chruch's view on this. Very helpful for my studies.

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by Makko52

If the Catholic Church does not find her beliefs in the bible, where does she get her authority from? To me God's Word has the final authority on everything.

JL: The Church’s authority comes from God. The Church RECEIVED her beliefs from the Word of God, handed down by the Apostles, wheather by WORD (Oral Apostolic Tradition) or EPISTLE (Scripture), [2 THES 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether BY word, OR our epistle.]

1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The Church was orally teaching, preaching, converting and faithfully passing on that Apostolic Tradition at least twenty years before the first word of the NT was written. Except for John all the apostles were dead before the NT was completely written and centuries before a set canon of books.

The Scriptures even say to HOLD FAST to BOTH, oral AND written, Traditions. Yet many ignore their only authority inventing a tradition of men, to nullify scripture. Going outside scripture saying ALL Oral Tradition is now in scripture. Even though scripture clearly says we are to hold BOTH. There is no scripture telling us Oral Tradtiions are ALL now in the written Word. But there are several that tell us to hold Tradition. The burden of proof is on those who claim ALL Tradition is in scripture.

1Tim6: Timothy, KEEP THAT WHICH IS COMMITTED TO THY TRUST, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

Philip4:9 THOSE THINGS, which YE HAVE both LEARNED, and RECEIVED, and HEARD, and SEEN IN ME, DO

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also.

2Tim1:13 [/b]HOLD FAST[/b] the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

[2Thes3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye WITHDRAW yourselves FROM EVERY BROTHER THAT WALKETH disorderly, and NOT AFTER THE TRADITION which he RECEIVED OF US.]

[jlhargus]

CONTINUED

Originally Posted by Makko52

I believe that the apostles and disciples of Jesus did not teach anything that contradicted with the scripture, and God moved them through the Holy Spirit to write down everything we need to know. But, this is how i feel about it, based on scripture. I do not expect everyone to feel that way nor do I condem them if they don’t.

JL: You are correct the apostles and disciples didn’t teach anything that contradicts scripture nor can oral Apostolic Tradition contradict scripture. Both are the Word of God. Oral Divine or Apostolic Traditions are discerned by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Oral Traditions and the Written Tradition of Scripture cannot be contradictory. Oral Traditions are found in the constant lived out life of the Church. It is discerned from teachings of councils, popes, writings of the Fathers, creeds, prayers, liturgy, etc..

There are traditions of men and Divine Tradition. Divine Traditions are those Traditions handed on by the apostles wherther by word (oral) or epistle (scripture) 2Thes2:15. There are also traditions of men, basically the customs of the time. Christ didn't even condenm triditions of men EXCEPT when those traditions of men nullify the Word. [Mk7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.] Examples of traditions of men, made a doctrine of God, would be sola scriptura, OSAS, baptism profession only, faith alone, etc.. None of those are taught in the Bible they actually contradict it.

A doctrine taught by the apostles orally would be the canon of the bible, The evidence is found in the lived out Traditions of the Church and those books agreement with that Tradition. Another, infant baptism, the evidence is found in the scriptures, where it is implied, and the constant lived out practice of the Church.

Others would be the Trinity. The evidence is found in the scriptures where it is implied and the lived out understanding in the Tradition of the Church as discerned and defined by Councils or the Pope. The mode of baptism by immersion is not taught in the bible. It is only known thru the lived out Tradition of the early Church. When the Lord's prayer is concluded with; for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory now and forever. That is an oral Tradition coming from the liturgy (worship service) being said after the Lord’s Prayer. I hope this helps you better understand the Catholic position on Tradition.

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Publisher

Not quite accurate...not all the OT books in the LXX are used by Catholics in their Bibles.

This is true. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses more of them than the western Catholic Church. But what is interesting in this is that neither of the ancient Christian Churches rejected the Deutero's in toto. So obviously the universal Church had no problem with using the Septuagint - at least in part, and after all, even St Paul said that ALL Scripture is useful...
Additionally it should be noted that, since the differences were known long before the Schism in the 11th century, it seems obvious that neither church found the matter worthy of seriously fighting over. Which leads to the question "why"?

The reason why the churches did not consider this to be a problem seems to come mainly from the underlying purpose in creating the canon in the first place. Not to replace the authoritative Church that had been functioning just fine for 400 years, with an "authoritative book", but rather it was desired to have a more common and consistent canon for use in the liturgy.
So - when the councils came up with the 73 books, and some areas continued to use a few more...Well it just wasn't seen as a "deal breaker".
It wasn't until the time of the reformation that things got dicey.
Luther's commentaries on the OT canon AND on some NT books were troubling, but even more troubling was the fact that anyone with access to a printing press could start printing "translations" of the bible which might or might not be accurate.
Since the Church had an obligation to protect the truth of the Scriptures, she needed to try to gain control over the translations so that she could make sure they were properly done. One of the things she did was to close the canon at 73 books...

Peace
James

[SonCatcher]

Originally Posted by Publisher

Not quite accurate...not all the OT books in the LXX are used by Catholics in their Bibles.

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77

Which ones aren't? Just curious.

The LXX existed at the time as a collection of manuscripts as it was not yet practical to contain them in a single volume. Slightly different collections became common in different regions.

The most comprehensive table I know of is at Wikipedia.