Could Someone Tell Me The Details Of When/where The Apocraphal Books Were Removed?


#1

Could someone please tell me short and sweet when exactly and how the Apocraphal books of the Bible were removed by the Prots? Were they there in all Bibles up until the 1500’s, until Luther, and then he said “REMOVE THEM”? Or what exactly? It’s so funny to me how all Prots. think we Catholics have “extra” books, when it’s just the opposite. Thx alot!!


#2

[quote=sparkle]Could someone please tell me short and sweet when exactly and how the Apocraphal books of the Bible were removed by the Prots? Were they there in all Bibles up until the 1500’s, until Luther, and then he said “REMOVE THEM”? Or what exactly? It’s so funny to me how all Prots. think we Catholics have “extra” books, when it’s just the opposite. Thx alot!!
[/quote]

Basically I’m trying to tell someone else’s history because we never removed them. They were in the Bibles up to the 1500’s. Somewhere around that time they were moved to the area between the Testaments but were still in the Bible. Luther and others didn’t like some of the books that supported Catholic teaching that they didn’t support. They tried to edit them out. In Luthers case he removed a good chunk including the whole book of James and others. His followers put them back. Eventually from what I understand to lower printing costs mass produced Bibles dropped them in the 1800’s. Now many are putting them back again at least at the end or between the Testaments.

Anyway that’s how I understand it (without really looking it up)!


#3

Also a reminder that to Catholics these books are not Apochryphal writings

St julie


#4

[quote=st julie]Also a reminder that to Catholics these books are not Apochryphal writings

St julie
[/quote]

Oh yes, I know. They’re called Deuterocanonical books.

So what was the name of the first Bible printed without these books? It was in the 1800’s then? Is that right? That’s not too long ago. Or was it in the 1500’s sometime? Anybody???


#5

Not the 1800’s, it was Luther’s time (1500’s or 1600’s, I’m terrible with remembering dates).

Part of his justification for dropping them is that they aren’t in the Jewish Canon of the old testament, which was modified after Christ’s time (again, they supported the fact that this man Jesus was the Mechiah and that was not what the Rabbi’s wanted folks believing). The were included in the scripture read at the time of Christ, the scripture he and his followers used in the synagog.

I believe the Alexandrian Jew’s were the primary keepers of this scripture, so it was retained in Greek. I believe it was recently found in Hebrew in the Dead Sea scrolls, indicating that it was part of the early Hebrew cannon, contrary to what Luther and others thought.

You may want to take a look at a short book, “Where we got the Bible” written at about the turn of the century (1900).

CARose


#6

this is fromThe Catholic Treasure Chest
The Apocrypha…

This is what the fundamentalists call the 7 books in Catholic Bibles that protestant Bibles do not have. Catholics call them ‘Deuterocanonicals’. They are, Baruch, Judith, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. They also include parts of Daniel and Esther. There are many other books, called Apocrypha, by Catholics that are not considered inspired. I believe Protestants merely put those 7 books in the same pot and called them all Apocrypha.

The Problem…

Non Catholics insist that the ‘Council of Trent’ added those seven books to bring the total number of books to 73. They point to the fact that the ‘Council of Jamnia’ removed those books from the Bible in 90-95 A.D., so they were never in the ‘Bible’ from that date on.

The Solution…

Absolutely right, for the second part of the problem. The ‘Council of Jamnia’ did indeed remove those 7 books. The fact of the matter is that Jamnia was not a Christian council, but a Jewish one, called specifically to counter Christianity. In keeping with their practice of presenting only half truths, the non-Catholic detractors fail to mention that fact. The Apostles and Christians in general, used the Greek’Septuagint’, also called LXX, as their Bible in the first century. This upset the Jews, so they decided to call a council to deal with the matter. Keep in mind that the Jewish temple was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and the Jewish priests were killed. Now they were fearful that Christianity would overtake them. The Septuagint is the Old Testament translation into Greek from Hebrew, which the Jews completed at Alexandria in the second century B.C., and it had all 46 books including the Deuterocanonicals. The Jews decided to revise the canon of the Old Testament and they wanted to remove references that would be useful to Christians.

Christians continued to use the Septuagint. In 397 the Old Testament canon containing all 46 books was formalized along with the 27 inspired books of the New Testament at the Council of Carthage. St. Jerome completed a Latin translation of the entire Bible in 405, called the ‘Vulgate’ which can still be found today. It always had all 73 books. All Christian Bibles for the next 1100 years had all 73 books. Martin Luther, at about 1521 decided to remove the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and put them in an appendix, because they had teachings of the Catholic Church which he rejected, such as Purgatory. He used as an excuse, that they were already removed at Jamnia, and never should have been considered as inspired. Yes, but don’t forget that the Jews did it at Jamnia, not the Christians. On Luther’s own initiative, he removed 7 books that had been in use from before the first day of Christianity. Let me ask you, if they were “added” at the Council of Trent in 1545, how could Luther have removed them some 20 years earlier if they weren’t there?

The Council of Trent was called in 1545 in response to the protestant reformation. One of the things they accomplished at Trent was a “reaffirmation that the 7 disputed books were indeed inspired and would continue to be included in the canon of the Old Testament”. They did not add them. They merely reconfirmed that they should be there. All Christian Bibles for the first 1500 years of Christianity had 46 books in the Old Testament, and all Catholic Bibles today continue to have them. I have noticed that even some King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?

History of the canons of the Old Testament can be confirmed by checking the records of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. They are readily available, as is St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint.

Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. As such, the Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever over Christianity. Suppose that next month of this year, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it. Would Protestants also remove these books from the King James bible? It would seem they have already set a precedent. Why do Protestants accept the ruling of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, and at the same time reject the ruling of the Christian Council of Carthage regarding the Old Testament canon? Further still, why do they accept the canon of the New Testament which was decided at the same Christian Council?


#7

D Quintero,

Your answer rocks!

Well done, great grasp of all the specific details, with which I was quite fuzzy!

CARose


#8

[quote=CARose]D Quintero,

Your answer rocks!

Well done, great grasp of all the specific details, with which I was quite fuzzy!

CARose
[/quote]

I thank you. But I can not take the credit. I got it from The Catholic treasure chest. I did memorize it though. I said it to my friend when he asked why we have extra books. If you can say that to a person who does not know much about the history of the Bible. You will get them each time. Tomorrow I am going to my friend’s house to speak about the extra books to his parents. They are former Catholics. Wish me luck! :wink:


#9

May the Holy Spirit guide you in your conversations, tomorrow and always.

God Bless,

CARose


#10

[quote=D Quintero]this is fromThe Catholic Treasure Chest
The Apocrypha…
I have noticed that even some King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?

?
[/quote]

Actually the original King James Bibles were published with the same canon list as the Catholic Versions. To this day the Anglican Church in England continues to use only the King James version which includes all the books that the Catholic bible has in it.

One other note a fella by the name of Miles Coverdale created a bible without the Deutorocanicals, in the year 1535. That’s ten years before Trent. So Trent may have been a response to not only fellas like Luther but also other “Wise Guys”, that were leaving the Deutoro’s out.

But, what I don’t understand, is that if you want to buy a KJV nowadays, who in the world decides what books are in it???
I mean after all they are called KJV.

I mean protestants claim that the KJV is the “Word of God”, so what wise guy decides which books are the inspired “Word of God” and which aren’t?


#11

[quote=Br. Rich SFO]Basically I’m trying to tell someone else’s history because we never removed them. They were in the Bibles up to the 1500’s. Somewhere around that time they were moved to the area between the Testaments but were still in the Bible. Luther and others didn’t like some of the books that supported Catholic teaching that they didn’t support. They tried to edit them out. In Luthers case he removed a good chunk including the whole book of James and others. His followers put them back. Eventually from what I understand to lower printing costs mass produced Bibles dropped them in the 1800’s. Now many are putting them back again at least at the end or between the Testaments.

Anyway that’s how I understand it (without really looking it up)!
[/quote]

The “Apocrypha” are making a come back in the King James Bible. Over in England, almost every King James Bible printed has the “Apocrypha” in it. It hasn’t taken off over here as much yet, but there are still King James Bibles over here printed with the “Apocrypha” in it.


#12

Protestants and Catholics are now questioning if the “Council” of Jamnia really determined the Palestinian Jewish Canon (The Ethiopian Jews still use the LXX today).

Here’s an article:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4sb.asp

It is not really known how the Palestinian Jewish Canon was determined. I have read before that the book of Sirach was read in Synagogues up until the 200s.

(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963 ) “Even in the second century of the Christian era the Jewish rabbis were not fully agreed on the Canonicity of certan books (e.g. Cant, Eccl; cfr. Also 4, Esd 14,44ff).”

(The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "

(Dictionary of Biblical Literacy 1986. p.321)“Precisely when Jewish leadership officially adopted the traditional 39 books of the so-called “Hebrew Canon” is not known; nor is there agreement as to exactly what criteria were used in determining the Canon.”


#13

Great answer D Quintero.

I understand that good and decent people are protestant by birth and it’s how they believe.

But is anyone else troubled by how adamantly protestants adhere to and propagate claims about the Catholic Church that are factually, demonstrably false by the records of history itself?

At what point do we say about a protestant cult that it’s no longer in a state of sincere ignorance, but has become something darker and more serious?


#14

[quote=sparkle]Oh yes, I know. They’re called Deuterocanonical books.

So what was the name of the first Bible printed without these books? It was in the 1800’s then? Is that right? That’s not too long ago. Or was it in the 1500’s sometime? Anybody???
[/quote]

It was a Bible Society that wanted to print a low cost mass produced Bible who dropped the books. The Original KJV had the books between the Testaments. It may have been the Standard Version or Revised Version somewhere between 1881 and 1901 that dropped them completely.


#15

This should make for intersting reading!

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Steve Ray (a leading Catholic apologist featured regularly on Catholic Answers) addresses this “Council of Jamnia.”

According to Steve Ray this WAS NOT a council in the way we think of a council. It was a gathering of Jewish rabbis (they asked permission to gather from the Roman officials) for purely spiritual reasons. There were really only 2 books of the LXX discussed - Ecclesiastes and Sircah (I think). No Jewish canon was decided at this gathering! In fact, the Jewish canon today is not a closed canon!

Read the article - it’s interesting!


#16

[quote=Chipper]Actually the original King James Bibles were published with the same canon list as the Catholic Versions. To this day the Anglican Church in England continues to use only the King James version which includes all the books that the Catholic bible has in it.

And what might that Bible be called? Where can you buy one?

[/quote]


#17

[quote=D Quintero]this is fromThe Catholic Treasure Chest
The Apocrypha…

This is what the fundamentalists call the 7 books in Catholic Bibles that protestant Bibles do not have. Catholics call them ‘Deuterocanonicals’. They are, Baruch, Judith, Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. They also include parts of Daniel and Esther. There are many other books, called Apocrypha, by Catholics that are not considered inspired. I believe Protestants merely put those 7 books in the same pot and called them all Apocrypha.

The Problem…

Non Catholics insist that the ‘Council of Trent’ added those seven books to bring the total number of books to 73. They point to the fact that the ‘Council of Jamnia’ removed those books from the Bible in 90-95 A.D., so they were never in the ‘Bible’ from that date on.

The Solution…

Absolutely right, for the second part of the problem. The ‘Council of Jamnia’ did indeed remove those 7 books. The fact of the matter is that Jamnia was not a Christian council, but a Jewish one, called specifically to counter Christianity. In keeping with their practice of presenting only half truths, the non-Catholic detractors fail to mention that fact. The Apostles and Christians in general, used the Greek’Septuagint’, also called LXX, as their Bible in the first century. This upset the Jews, so they decided to call a council to deal with the matter. Keep in mind that the Jewish temple was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and the Jewish priests were killed. Now they were fearful that Christianity would overtake them. The Septuagint is the Old Testament translation into Greek from Hebrew, which the Jews completed at Alexandria in the second century B.C., and it had all 46 books including the Deuterocanonicals. The Jews decided to revise the canon of the Old Testament and they wanted to remove references that would be useful to Christians.

Christians continued to use the Septuagint. In 397 the Old Testament canon containing all 46 books was formalized along with the 27 inspired books of the New Testament at the Council of Carthage. St. Jerome completed a Latin translation of the entire Bible in 405, called the ‘Vulgate’ which can still be found today. It always had all 73 books. All Christian Bibles for the next 1100 years had all 73 books. Martin Luther, at about 1521 decided to remove the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and put them in an appendix, because they had teachings of the Catholic Church which he rejected, such as Purgatory. He used as an excuse, that they were already removed at Jamnia, and never should have been considered as inspired. Yes, but don’t forget that the Jews did it at Jamnia, not the Christians. On Luther’s own initiative, he removed 7 books that had been in use from before the first day of Christianity. Let me ask you, if they were “added” at the Council of Trent in 1545, how could Luther have removed them some 20 years earlier if they weren’t there?

The Council of Trent was called in 1545 in response to the protestant reformation. One of the things they accomplished at Trent was a “reaffirmation that the 7 disputed books were indeed inspired and would continue to be included in the canon of the Old Testament”. They did not add them. They merely reconfirmed that they should be there. All Christian Bibles for the first 1500 years of Christianity had 46 books in the Old Testament, and all Catholic Bibles today continue to have them. I have noticed that even some King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?

History of the canons of the Old Testament can be confirmed by checking the records of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. They are readily available, as is St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint.

Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. As such, the Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever over Christianity. Suppose that next month of this year, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it. Would Protestants also remove these books from the King James bible? It would seem they have already set a precedent. Why do Protestants accept the ruling of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, and at the same time reject the ruling of the Christian Council of Carthage regarding the Old Testament canon? Further still, why do they accept the canon of the New Testament which was decided at the same Christian Council?
[/quote]

Great! Man this takes some studying!!! Do you know though, if Luther originally took these 7 books and put them in the appendix of the Bible, when/how/who had them removed all together? There must have been several years where they appeared in the appendix, then later taken out all together, right?


#18

[quote=Br. Rich SFO]It was a Bible Society that wanted to print a low cost mass produced Bible who dropped the books. The Original KJV had the books between the Testaments. It may have been the Standard Version or Revised Version somewhere between 1881 and 1901 that dropped them completely.
[/quote]

Someone tell me for sure, when was it dropped permanently? Was the KJV then re-named? Apologetics work begun here ----YAY:D


#19

Google Mark Shea’s “5 myths about 7 books.” EXCELLENT read on the subject.


#20

Thanks Montanaman!. Hey how’s your girlfriend? I recall you had found the “love of your life”.

God Bless~


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.