why do the catholics have more books than the 66 book bible
Here’s a tract on the subject. Search the CAF library for more.
Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical’s as inspired. This is came out of the reformation and goes against Church history since the Council of Rome in 382.
Fact: the original 1611 King James Bible had 73 books.
Another question to ask is how do you know that the 66 books in your bible are inspired and inerrant? We agree that they are but how do you know?
Answer, you implicitly trust the Catholic Church as the bishops of the Church decided that they were, out of several hundred writings at the time. This was affirmed at Rome, then Hippo and Carthage. All before 400 ad. Except…they decided 73 books were inspired and inerrant.
The bible is a Catholic book. Written by, for and about the Catholic Church. It was compiled in part for instruction but also to have a universal set of readings at Mass, world-wide.
HOW, Did they decide what was/wasn’t inspired, what to include/exclude?
Answer for yourself and discover why the New Testament has 27 books and you will find your answer.
The NT has many references to the OT. Jesus Himself quoted scripture (OT). He quoted from all the books of the OT including the deuterocanonical books. Hence, an exclusion of these books makes the bible incomplete.
Who says there are 73? Various Eastern Catholic communions have a different number.
You may have noticed that there are differences between the OT Canon of Latin Catholics and various Eastern Catholics (who do not even precisely agree among themselves). You may have also noticed that these differences have never been a source of theological controversy among Catholics.
Why is that?
It is simply because no early Christian considered himself to be an authority of the Jewish Canon. There was not (and is still not) any “official” Jewish Canon. The OT was the purview of the Jewish Church, and each Christian Church simply accepted whatever OT was in use by the Synagogue down the street. Since there was not any official Jewish Canon, differences arose between Eastern and Western canons.
When the protestants invented a new Christian religion, they did the EXACT same thing that the early Christians did with regard to the OT - they used whatever was recognized by the Synagogue down the street. By this time (since the Fifth Century - not Jamna, but the Masoretic Text), the Jews had largely adopted a “Hebrew-only” mentality about their Scriptures - they rejected OT Scripture which was originally written in Greek.
In Our Lord’s time, 2/3 of the Jews of the world were Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews.
The Catholic Church has never objected to anything simply because it was originally written in Greek (such as, umm, the New Testament). The Catholic Church adopted the Jewish writings used by the Synagogue down the street from a very early age, whereas protestants adopted a later version.
Thus, Western, Eastern, and protestant Christians adopted whatever was in use by the Synagogue down the street.
When Martin Luther formed his own religion, he stated that the 7 deuterocanonical books were of lesser importance but still made good reading so he put them in an appendix. He also did not like some of the NT books such as James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelations but others convinced him to leave them in.
The King James Bible that was put together in 1611 had the 7 books as an appendix. Somewhere along the line (and I believe as late as 100 or 200 years ago), the books got taken out. There are many reasons put forward for this including that the printers thought that taking them out would reduce the cost of printing. There is said to exist KJV bibles that have the 7 books in the index but the books did not exist in the bible itself. The current version of KJ does not have the 7 books.
I am a former Anglican, and my friend was a REAL Anglican (an Englishman (complete with the accent) of the Church of England). He was scandalized (25 years ago) that it was even POSSIBLE to buy a KJV in America which excluded the seven texts.
His KJV had all seven texts. It is NOW easy to buy such a complete KVJ text on Amazon.
I did not know that but it is good to know. I hear that the Anglicans use the 73 books though I am not sure.
Not saying that I do not believe you but here is a link that says that the KJV has 66 books.
Maybe they have come out with a new version that has 73 books.
I think that from the Reformers POV the Deuterocanonical books contained a number of embarrassingly Catholic doctrines, such as praying for the dead, so they looked for any old excuse to ditch them and seized on the fact of them having been originally written in Greek. Notwithstanding which they continued to make use of them for some time, you can see this for example in the Book of Homilies which were mandatory reading in the Church of England in the 16th Century.
Luther in general had a fairly cavalier attitude to Scripture that did not agree with his doctrines as we can see from his preface to St James
Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.
Incidentally, I think those without the Deuterocanonical texts lose out on some cracking good stories like that of Tobit, Bel and the Dragon and Judith and Holofernes about whom my last blog is written-
I often feel when reading her story that if I had encountered it as a teenager then my interest in religion would have started a whole lot earlier than it did. It has so many great elements. It is mercifully short. It features war, battle, siege, seduction and drunkenness and in Judith a feisty heroine who is glamorous, willing to wield a sword with the boys and no mean military strategist
And here is another one from a Protestant site kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/
The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.
Quite simple really…primarily, the early reformers had issues with what the Catholic Church taught. In order to make Protestantism more to their liking, and couldn’t justify eliminating/changing some things while they remained in the Bible. That’s why Maccabees 1 and 2 came out (big chunk of purgatory doctrine). Luther also wanted the Letter of James taken out (shows that works and faith go hand-in-hand), as well as the Book of Revelation (because he knew a large chunk of it correlates with the Catholic Mass)…but alas, was unsuccessful in doing so.
Protestants often try to point out the differences in the number of books between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bibles, insinuating that the Catholic church has ADDED books. They have in the backs of their minds scripture warning not to add or take anything away from God’s word…yet fail to realize that it was the heretics who founded Protestantism that removed these books. I respect another’s opinion and am in no way calling all Protestants heretics…only those who split and began teaching their own doctrine. Protestants who’ve been raised in these churches, I don’t see as being heretics, only lacking exposure to the full truth not by their own fault. And to be fair…there have been MANY heretics in the Catholic church who had warped ideas of what the church is about/teach. I have come across Catholics who believe we worship Mary (ignorantly), and all of the other stereotypes you hear about Catholics. But the truth is, that is NOT what the Church teaches. These ‘Catholics’ whom actually believe these things, I’ve found are often the ones which seriously lack faith formation, don’t read scripture, and have never picked up a Catechism.
One of my main beefs with Protestantism is that you can select any denomination (Baptist for instance), and find teaching varies greatly from congregation to congregation…let alone across different denominations. You dont find that typically with Catholicism. Its usually a safe assumption you’ll find same teaching regardless of locale or era in time.
I apologize for the novel. I’ll step down from my soapbox. I work nights and these stimulants make me a live wire, lol!!
On a semi-related note…
Does anyone else find it numerous that Protestants often times try pulling from the Bible to discount Catholicism?? The same Bible that was COMPILED/SAFEGUARDED/TRANSLATED/and in some cases WRITTEN by leaders of the early Catholic Church?? Seems like a self defeating argument to me. I’ve never understood how a person could try discrediting the teacher, by means of his own teaching.
Yeah not to mention the symbolism of the Protestant bible having 66 books. The number 6 is not a good number and is too similar to 666. That right there is a sign. Not saying Protestants are the antichrist or anything I’m just talking about the number itself and having 66 books in the Bible is not a good sign. 7 is the number of perfection. 70-something books is a better sign. 7 the number of perfection and 3 for the Trinity.
HUMOROUS, not numerous…lol, stupid spell check
LOL!! Yeah, thats the sort of grasping at straws were used to seeing from the relentless anti-Catholics!
Robo, see my cross outs in your text above.
It’s a Catholic book. All who wrote it and compiled it were Catholics.