Non Catholic bibles are "edited and abridged"...Why do you say that?


To begin with, please tell me this.

Does your Bible contain 66 books or 73?

If your answer is 66, then a simple check of history will show that you are using an abridged and edited Bible that has had 7 books removed within the last 500 years.

Yes, I am referring to the Deuterocanonical books.

The Old Testament Canon

(Link to article)

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.Please read that entire article carefully before you begin your response and then we can get into this further.[/size]


It’s not a revelation, but if numbers in the Scriptures have significance, I find it odd that there are 66 books in the protestant bibles and 73 in the Catholic ones-- and that prostestant groups attach no significance at all as far as I can tell.

The number 6 is the “number of man” and generally not portrayed as good in the Scriputures.

The numbers 7 and 3, however, are both heavenly numbers so to speak-- with 7 meaning to be complete or full…

[quote=Genesis 2:2]By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

…and 3 meaning something like that which will generally hold together well and is rather solidly put together.

[quote=Ecclesiastes 4:12]Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

The threefold 6 seems to refer to the mystery of iniquity which is likewise fairly solid but will one day be totally severed as well, since it is based on man’s efforts instead of God’s.


While the Septuagint collection of Sacred Books was ever accepted by the Church as the official canon of the Old Testament, still the fact that later Jewry by contraction of its ancient canon excluded seven Books (Baruch, Tobias, Judith, 1 & 2 Machabees, Ecclesiasticus or Sirach, and Wisdom) and portions of two others (Esther 10:4 to 16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13; 14) caused some confusion. Because of this confusion some ecclesiastical writers, from the 3rd century on, seem at times to hesitate regarding the full canonicity of the Books and parts omitted from the Hebrew Bible, - which later were called “deuterocanonical”. But even these men, although they theoretically held that these Books could not be used to establish dogmatic points in controversies, nevertheless in practice themselves cited them as inspired Scripture in their works, Sts. Cyril, Athanasius and Jerome as examples. There was no definite dogmatic decision by the Church concerning the matter until the 16th century Reformers directly denied the inspired character of the “deuterocanonical” works, and pinned their faith in the Old Testament to the Masoretic text alone as fixed about the 6th century after Christ. Then the Church, through the Council of Trent, issued its decree declaring once and for all that the “deuterocanonical” works were in inspiration on a par with with all the other Books of the canon, thereby formally adopting for the Old Testament the older Alexandrine, or Septuagint, canon, which she had held in practice from the very beginning, and rejecting the later, Palestinian, canon as incomplete. The followers of the Reformers, however, have preferred to adhere to this newer, mutilated, canon and Protestant Bibles to this day entirely omit the seven Books and odd parts called 'deuterocanonical" from their versions of the Old Testament.


Not so ironically, the New Testament itself attests to the validity of the full Canon of the Old Testament.

Here is a link to a link.


From the critical standpoint the correctness of the Church’s choice in adopting the broader Alexandrian rather than the narrower Palestinian canon, may be vindicated from the followering considerations, which tend largely to show that the Alexandrian was before the time of Christ also the canon of the Palestinian Jews.

(a) The Sacred Books which the Alexandrian translators and editors included in their Scripture collection compiled for the Jewish colony in Egypt must have been acceptable to it. Because between Jerusalem and Alexandria there was continual communication, and Jerusalem, being the motherland, could and would have certainly censured any unwarranted religious innovations in Alexandria. But Palestine did not reject the Alexandrian canon till about the year 100 after Christ, at the earliest.

(b) From the “Letter of Aristeas” (Josephus, Antiquities, XII, ii, 11, 13) and the "Letter of the Palestinian Jews (II Machabees 2:14-15), one may deduce that the pre-Christian Palestinian Synagogue itself furnished Alexandria with most of the material for the Septuagint version. Again, an isolated Jewish sect of Upper Egypt (Abyssinia), the Falashas, dating from before the Christian era, uses an Ethiopic Old Testament which also contains all the “deuterocanonical” Books.

© The Septuagint version is used almost exclusively in the writings of the New Testament, showing that during Christ’s time or shortly after it was in full repute in Palestine. Moreover, almost 100 passages in the New Testament have been shown to be quotations from or allusions to “deuterocanonical” texts.

(d) In the Talmud Ecclesiasticus is mentioned as Scripture with the Law and the Prophets, about the 4th century. Baruch was read in the synagogues as late as the 3rd century.

By accepting the Greek versions of the Old Testament rather than the Hebrew text as it was edited about a century after Christ, the Church provided rather a superior text and better readings of the Old Law, because the Septuagint version was based in its translations upon much more ancient manuscripts than were available for the present standard Hebrew Bible. Moreover, in a few places this later Hebrew text seems to have been deliberately tampered with, in order to discredit Christianity (e.g. Psalm 109:3; 21:17)


In reference to post # 3© above:

James 1:19 witnesses to Ecclus. 5:11 and 4:29
I Corinthians 2:10 to Judith 8:14
Hebrews 11: 34-35 to 2 Machabees 6:18 and 7:42
Romans 1: 20-32 to Wisdom 13-15
Hebrews 1:3 to Wisdom 7:26


In conclusion, the present Hebrew (so-called Palestinian) canon seems to date from not earlier than the famous Jewish synagogue of Jabneh or Jamnia, where the leaders of the then defunct Synagogue (after the fall of Jerusalem) assembled and, among other matters, decreed that Ecclesiastes and Canticles belonged to the Hagiographa. By that time the Pharisaic party was in full control of Jewish national and religious life. Hence, according to their exaggerated principle of non-communication with the “goyim”, the Gentiles, they seem to have ruthlessly cast out of their canon of Sacred Writ all such Books or editions which had been originally written in a foreign tongue or upon foreign soil, ( to brethe the air of a non-Palestinian country, was, according to the latter Jews, legally defiling ) or which did not seem to conform strictly to the Law of Moses as interpreted by themselves. Therefore the present Old Testament series of the Jews and Protestants might in fact be called the Pharasaic canon.


The closing of the Canon by this excluding act which segregated the Apocrypha was the work of Pharisaism triumphant. Thus was the first false Canon established by those who refused to follow Christ and His Church. And this clearly post-Christian and erroneous norm was subsequently, when the 16th century Reformers similarly broke away from Christ’s Church, adopted as the Canon of the Protestant Bible versions, - despite the fact that Christ Himself had long ago warned His disciples to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees”, i.e., of their specific doctrine (Matthew 16:6, 12).


Very well said Tom. :thumbsup:

And, in addition to this, I find an uncanny parallel between the Jewish rejection of the deuterocanonical books and the Protestant rejection of these same exact books– both, apparently, for the supposed reasons of too much “pagan” influences.


Okay… so where are all the rest of the people on this forum?

[SIGN]***Little help!***[/SIGN]


What? You’re all doing fine without me. 66 is less than 73. That means seven books were removed. Removal of books from the Bible (and some chapters from some other books that were not removed) shortens it. To shorten a book and/or a collection of books is to abridge it. Abridgement is a kind of editing. Q.E.D.


The thing that I find ironic, is the fact that anyone will try to defend the shorter canon, on the grounds that they are using the Jewish canon…Um…Hello?? Isn’t that the “canon”:rolleyes: :eek: without the New Testament in it, too??:shrug:
If someone wants to reject the deuterocanon because it isn’t in Jewish Scriptures, why do they then turn around, and say that they are accepting the NT?? I mean, if the Jews were right to leave out 7 books in the Old Testament, then they must be right to reject the whole of the New, too, right??
Oh, wait…That would mean:eek: :eek: rejecting Jesus Christ, too, wouldn’t it??

You don’t need my help, though, CM, you are doing :thumbsup: :thumbsup: just fine without me…


Some of the key beliefs in Christianity, even most protestants hold dear, come from the deuterocanonicals.
1.Creation exnihilo Second book of Maccabes. Rabbinic Jews only accepted that in the Middle Ages. Never confirmed in other parts of the Bible.Rabbinic Jews believed G-D created the heavens and the earth from preexisting matter.
2. The snake as Satan. Baruc and Wisdom. Confirmed in the NT
3. Inmortal souls. First Maccabes and clearly in Wisdom. Confirmed in the NT.

BTW I got this info from the most excellend book Genesis, El Origen de la Diferencia (Genesis the origin of difference) a extensive JEWISH commentary on Genesis by Dr. Danial Coladenco, a argentinian jewish scholar.

No wonders why the SDA and the JW who used the Protestant canon falled into the doctrine of soul sleep.



Because Church Militant says so. :smiley:

ETA: Link to Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church


Some non-Catholics like to claim that the deuterocanonical books are not quoted in the NT. Scripture Catholic begs to differ. :thumbsup:


What about the oft heard allegation that we Catholics added them at the Council of Trent? Anyone want to deal with that piece of fiction?


The Church was just responding to the Protestant attack on the traditional biblical canon and was just reaffirming the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books.

Of course we know that "'At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as “Apocrypha”)." - SOURCE


Well, the easiest way to disprove this this is to ask them to show you that before Trent the Church didn’t consider those books as canonical. I wouldn’t hold your breath. :slight_smile:


CM, I see that you are looking for a debate. If so, I could definitely use some back up on a couple of OTHER discussion boards that have Catholic concepts a little bit confused.

CAF rules prohibit me from posting the URLs but PM me if you’re interested in the links.


PM me with links.

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