What books are missing in protestant bible?

Also, can you explain to me how the dead sea scrolls are related to those missing books. If Luther was alive, would he know he made a grave mistake in removing those books, because of the found dead sea scrolls?

The “Deutorocanonical/Apocryphal” books in between the Old Testament and New Testament.

*]Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
*]Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus)
*]Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)
*]Additions to Daniel:
*]Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
*]Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
*]Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
*]1 Maccabees
*]2 Maccabees

God bless :byzsoc:


Can you name the specific bible translation that has all the canonical books? Latin Vulgate>

Vulgate, NABRE, RSV-2CE, Douay-Rheims, those are the basics. For protestants, the original KJV does, as do some Lutheran bibles.

As Swiss Guy said, not all Protestant bibles are “missing” books.

Add to this the Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible

Keep in mind these “Catholic” bibles include the 7 additional OT books as part of the OT.
There are many Bibles that include a section called the “Apocrypha” which includes the 7 deuteros as well as additional books such as 3 & 4 Maccabees.

A Bible is considered a “Catholic Edition” if it contains 46 books in the OT in traditional Catholic order. All Bibles include 27 NT books.

An argument first brought up by Jerome and later by Luther was that there were no copies of the Deuterocanonical books in Hebrew. They only had Greek manuscripts. Jerome first believed that these books should not be part of the OT. Luther had the same argument believing that these were later additions that crept into the OT. The Dead Sea scrolls contained fragments of Sirach and Tobit in Hebrew.

See thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html
for more info.

Compared to the Orthodox Bible canon…a few more than the Catholics are missing.:slight_smile:

This may be for another thread, but if the Orthodox and the Roman churches were one in the same before 1054ad, then why do they both have different books in their canons today? The councils responsible for compiling the canon are part of the Orthodox church today. Who is in error? Those councils that compiled the Scriptures or the Catholic church today who has less books in their version of the canon?

I may be wrong but I thought the Orthodox Churches always recognized the additional books they use today, even before the East/West split. I believe the Catholic Church follows the canon that was presented at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage which are the same books included in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate…

The Syriac, Old Latin, and Coptic versions from c. A,D 150 contain them as do the fourth and fifth century Codexes (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus), and the Latin Vulgate (published A.D. 405). The Douay-Rheims, a 16th century translation, has them. They are in all the modern Catholic Bibles – New American, Jerusalem, St. Joseph Edition, etc. They are also in the Protestant RSV Catholic Edition.

The canon was decided at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), and the third and fourth Carthage (397, 419). The same canon was named in each of these local councils, whose decrees were approved by popes. The pope’s approval sealed and finalized the decision(s).

Jim Dandy

Luther rejected the Greek Septuagint in favor of the Hebrew canon, The Palestinian rabbis had rejected it well into the Christian era because it was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Mediterranean world, including many Jews, and it was the Scripture of the early Church.

The Septuagint was a translation from the Hebrew. Only two ‘books’ – Wisdom and 2 Maccabees – were originally in Greek. The Hebrew text of the other books was lost and is preserved only in the Greek.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, Hebrew fragments of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) and Tobit were found, indicating that they (and others) should not have been rejected by the rabbis or by Luther on the basis that they were not in Hebrew.

Jim Dandy

Probably another good reason for Lutherans to include them. :wink:


Do you think they should be part of the canon?

God Bless,

I still believe they should be taken cautiously. With regards to setting doctrine, it seems prudent to have sources from the undisputed books. With that caveat, why not? (And I can say that as a Lutheran since the confessions don’t set a canon. :smiley: )


I don’t see Bel and the Dragon as part of the Catholic canon.

Perhaps a Catholic can correct me…but I think Bel and the Dragon are at the end of Daniel…not a separate book.

i think you are correct, but i don’t see the text in a Catholic version of Scripture.

All this works for me, as a non-denominational Christian with Anglican and Lutheran sympathies, who happens to belong to an AG church. :thumbsup:

Pastor Paul McCain on his blog cyberbretheren said in his June 22, 2010 post that CPH will publish The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes will be out in 2012.

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.