Missing pages from one's bible

[Xeno.of.athens]

They aren't missing from my Bible; they were never in my Bible.

You said yourself that it was common to put the OT apocryphal books in between the OT and NT

What I wrote is that it is the custom with the KJV to put seven books and portions from two others in an intertestamental appendix. That is not the same thing as saying that it is common to do so; but I do acknowledge that Protestant bibles that include what Protestants call "the apocrypha" do commonly place them in-between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If salvation somehow depended on the number of books in our Bibles, then it would matter, but it doesn't so it doesn't.

Quite true. Christ saves, not the bible. Yet having a complete bible does seem like an advantage for learning what God has revealed. The missing pages contain some quite profound teaching and many excellent examples of godly living.

 

[Brother-Mike]

What do you good people do when you think about the missing pages? Does it bother you or are you happy as happy can be to have around 300 pages missing from your bible?

Oh, I understand now. So you're not joking or trolling but merely wondering whether ~38% of the global Christian population is "happy as happy can be" to be using an incomplete bible with "pages missing".

Similarly, your post from last month regarding "Praying to the saints":

So, I wondered if those who have qualms about these practises give much thought to the deep meaning that they do have for the Catholic and Orthodox faithful.

Just another innocent question? Perhaps. But from my perspective you certainly have a talent for phrasing your questions in a condescending, passive-aggressive manner that seems indistinguishable from "how do you rubes survive with such a broken faith" boasting. Don't you have better things to do in the wee hours?

And for the record I would have the same concern if a fellow Protestant was trolling my brother and sister Catholics in these forums, and for the same reasons.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Oh, I understand now.

The original post asked the questions in the quote that I included in my reply to your post. You could have seen them in the original post since they were there to be seen.

Just another innocent question?

No, just another question in a different thread.

But from my perspective you certainly have a talent as phrasing your questions in a condescending, passive-aggressive manner that seems indistinguishable from "how do you rubes survive with such a broken faith" boasting. Don't you have better things to do in the wee hours?

One is glad that this is your perspective rather than the intended meaning of the question that you quoted. You are, of course, responsible for your own perspective whatever it may be.

And for the record I would have the same concern if a fellow Protestant was trolling my brother and sister Catholics in these forums, and for the same reasons.

I regret that you express such views because it is not the case that either thread represents what you claim.

 

[Valletta]

I have a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is a King James Version with all of the canonical books included (73 of them), but with seven of them and parts of two more in a kind of intertestamental appendix, as is the custom with the KJV. And I have numerous Catholic bibles with 73 canonical books. And I have some Protestant versions with only 66 books in them which means about 288 to 300 pages are missing from the 66 book versions. What do you good people do when you think about the missing pages? Does it bother you or are you happy as happy can be to have around 300 pages missing from your bible?

They dropped the books from within the bindings of the King James Bible at some time in the 1800s.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

They dropped the books from within the bindings of the King James Bible at some time in the 1800s.

Yes, I have read that. Some say it was the British & Foreign Bible Society that was chiefly responsible for discarding them from the KJV editions that they were willing to fund.

 

[Strong in Him]

What I wrote is that it is the custom with the KJV to put seven books and portions from two others in an intertestamental appendix. That is not the same thing as saying that it is common to do so;

Yes, ok; agreed.

but I do acknowledge that Protestant bibles that include what Protestants call "the apocrypha" do commonly place them in-between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

That's because they cover the period between the OT and the NT.

But you haven't answered the rest of my post:
- who says that these writings have just as much authority as Isaiah, for example?
- what do they teach us about our faith and the Christian life? (Probably little, as there were no prophecies during that time.)
- and what about the NT apocryphal books, like the Gospel of Peter? You would think they would teach us more about our faith than OT books; why haven't you mentioned them?

This just sounds like another dig at Protestants - "you have a Bible with pages missing".
Maybe you agree with some of your fellow Catholics who have told us that we only have "part of" or a "subset of" the truth?

 

[Strong in Him]

Quite true. Christ saves, not the bible. Yet having a complete bible does seem like an advantage for learning what God has revealed. The missing pages contain some quite profound teaching and many excellent examples of godly living.

What does the Apocrypha teach us about life and our faith that is so vital?
What extra bits of the Gospel do you have that folk who don't read the Apocrypha don't have?
How does knowing what went on before John the Baptist arrived - a time of no prophets and no prophecy - add to your faith?

We have all we need in 66 books of the Bible.
The OT prophesied Jesus' coming, the Gospels revealed his coming, the epistles taught what his coming, his ministry, his death, resurrection and ascension mean for us, how we can live out our faith in the power of the Spirit, and look ahead to Jesus' second coming.
This is the Gospel. Jesus is truth and saves us.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I notice that whenever this topic comes up all meaningful nuance tends to be tossed out the window in favor of mere partisan bickering.

The question of the Biblical Canon and the status of the Deuterocanonical books is a highly complex one, it involves questions and conversations within Christianity that have been going on for the last two thousand years and can't be reduced to "Protestants removed them" or "Catholics added them" arguments.

Someone earlier mentioned the Jewish council at Jamnia (Javneh) in the late first century. That never happened. There's no historical record of a Jewish council held at the city of Javneh. The city of Javneh was an historically important city for Judaism in the late first century after the fall of the Jewish Temple. But there is no historical evidence of a "council" there, or that said council addressed the Jewish Scriptural Canon. In modern times there was speculation that perhaps something like this may have happened--but there's no evidence for it, there's nothing in the historical record, and nobody before the modern era mentioned it. And, indeed, the actual evidence suggests that the evolution of the Jewish Tanakh was itself an ongoing question among the post-Temple Rabbinate into the Talmudic era. Which is to say, both Jews and Christians were having their own distinct and separate conversations and debates about what their Scriptures were at the same time.

Whatever path the Jewish Rabbinate took isn't binding on the Church anymore than what path the Church took would be binding on the Jewish religion. So the question of what books belong in the Christian Bible cannot be answered by what books were ultimately accepted or rejected among rabbinical Jews in the first few centuries AD. Rabbinical authority is of no consequence in Christianity, just as Ecclesiastical authority has no meaning in Judaism. Christianity and Judaism split apart from one another, as Christians made their identity not as Jews, but as Christians--followers of Jesus as the Messiah, who embraced both Jewish and Gentile members without distinction. While Jews have their identity in their Jewishness, based on the covenant God established with them at Mt. Horeb in Sinai. Early on there isn't a firm line between Judaism and Christianity, Jewish Christians continued to attend synagogue, worship at the Temple, etc. But as time went on, as friction arose between Church and Synagogue, and finally with the destruction of the Temple Jewish religion coalesced into its own unique religious identity, one that didn't include Christians within it. And Christianity, likewise, took on its own identity apart from our Jewish neighbors and cousins. There's no finger pointing made here, it's just a matter of history. Judaism became its own thing, and Christianity became its own thing. By the end of the first century this had become rather clear; and was made more obvious in the Talmudic period for Judaism, and the Patristic period for Christianity. This isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing. So Judaism isn't Christianity, and Christianity isn't Judaism. And that's okay.

So whatever conversation we are going to have about the Deuterocanonical books should be within the context of the Church. What those outside of Christianity think about these books isn't relevant.

Now, some might think that this solves the issue: The Church said yes to these books, therefore they are in. But history isn't that simple, and the questions surrounding these books aren't answered that simply. There's no singular source that we can point to and say, "That's it, that's when it happened", as I've seen some do with the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage; because we also have other councils like those at Laodicea which don't agree with the aforementioned western councils. Further, such local councils do not have the import of an ecumenical council--and no Church-wide council of the first thousand years ever addressed these questions. And any claimed Church-wide councils, such as the western "ecumenical" councils which only Rome accepts but which are not accepted by anyone else isn't going to answer this question either. Yes, the Council of Trent did affirm the canonical status of these books--and so for Roman Catholics who accept the authority of Trent the matter is settled. But those who don't accept the authority of Trent don't consider the matter settled by Trent at all.

The Eastern Churches point to the Septuagint saying that's the Christian Old Testament, plain and simple. Roman Catholics look to their own councils, and Protestants to their own confessions. But none of this actually settles the question. The question is definitively and unmistakably un-settled.

So here's, what I think, is one of the most important questions to be asked in the middle of all this: Can Christians have disagreements over the Biblical Canon and still be Christians together? Can we have these disagreements and still be biblically oriented and biblically faithful? Or is this question itself sufficient to create such division that one side can claim the other is fundamentally unfaithful to Jesus because of this? Is this a matter where disagreement is acceptable, or where disagreement cannot be acceptable? Do we need to, all of us, have the exact same Biblical Canon? Now, I'm not answering this question here, I'm simply asking the question in the hope that this can provide a more meaningful discourse for us to be having. Or, perhaps, my question is already answered in this thread: All sides saying, we cannot have disagreement, and either Catholics wrongly added books, and Protestants wrongly removed books, and the Orthodox are looking at the West being weird again.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Brother-Mike]

Can Christians have disagreements over the Biblical Canon and still be Christians together? Can we have these disagreements and still be biblically oriented and biblically faithful?

Amen to this, and to the need for open-minded and uniting souls needed for these kinds of initiatives. Which is probably why I disagree as strongly as I do over wording like “does it bother you to have 300 pages missing from your bible” which seems diametrically opposed to the spirit of brotherhood that you envision here.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, I have read that. Some say it was the British & Foreign Bible Society that was chiefly responsible for discarding them from the KJV editions that they were willing to fund.

The preface has also been removed from the original King James. The preface recognized a number of previous Biblical translations into English. Even today a lot of people today don't know of the numerous Catholic translations into English long before the first Protestant translation appeared.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

who says that these writings have just as much authority as Isaiah, for example?

The Catholic Church says it.

what do they teach us about our faith and the Christian life? (Probably little, as there were no prophecies during that time.)

The only way to see is to read them for yourself (if you have not yet read them), or to read commentaries on them which include the text that is commented upon.

and what about the NT apocryphal books, like the Gospel of Peter? You would think they would teach us more about our faith than OT books; why haven't you mentioned them?

None of them is canonical so none of them play a direct role in deciding doctrine, morals, or practises; but some of these books (such as the Didache) are valuable sources from which the Church and scholars within the Church can gain a better understanding of ancient practises, the meaning of words, and the significance of customs and practises from ancient times.

This just sounds like another dig at Protestants - "you have a Bible with pages missing".
Maybe you agree with some of your fellow Catholics who have told us that we only have "part of" or a "subset of" the truth?

I do believe that Protestants appear to have varying views on many matters and not least on how they view the books that they call apocryphal.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What does the Apocrypha teach us about life and our faith that is so vital?

One example is teaching about the goodness of praying for those who have died.

What extra bits of the Gospel do you have that folk who don't read the Apocrypha don't have?

There are no "extra bits of the gospel" in any of the canonical old covenant books but there are types and shadows, teaching about wisdom, and prophetic teaching which can be read in the books of:

1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. Esther
4. Daniel
5. Wisdom
6. Ecclesiasticus
7. Baruch
8. 1 Maccabees
9. 2 Maccabees

How does knowing what went on before John the Baptist arrived - a time of no prophets and no prophecy - add to your faith?

Taste and see for yourself.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I notice that whenever this topic comes up all meaningful nuance tends to be tossed out the window in favor of mere partisan bickering.

I am doing my best - as insufficient as my best may be - to politely answer questions no matter how they are put.

The question of the Biblical Canon and the status of the Deuterocanonical books is a highly complex one, it involves questions and conversations within Christianity that have been going on for the last two thousand years and can't be reduced to "Protestants removed them" or "Catholics added them" arguments.

This observation is mostly true; the questions raised in ancient times and in the Middle Ages do raise issues that are nuanced and have had much study devoted to them. I say only that these books are canonical in the Catholic tradition, and I observe that the Orthodox also regard them as canonical. I also observe that a number of Protestant groups indicate that they do not count these books as canonical and that a few appear to dispense with them altogether.

Someone earlier mentioned the Jewish council at Jamnia (Javneh) in the late first century. That never happened. There's no historical record of a Jewish council held at the city of Javneh. The city of Javneh was an historically important city for Judaism in the late first century after the fall of the Jewish Temple. But there is no historical evidence of a "council" there, or that said council addressed the Jewish Scriptural Canon

Quite true. I agree that this appears to be the case from the historical data that exists.

In modern times there was speculation that perhaps something like this may have happened--but there's no evidence for it, there's nothing in the historical record, and nobody before the modern era mentioned it. And, indeed, the actual evidence suggests that the evolution of the Jewish Tanakh was itself an ongoing question among the post-Temple Rabbinate into the Talmudic era. Which is to say, both Jews and Christians were having their own distinct and separate conversations and debates about what their Scriptures were at the same time.

I think this is a fair summary of the development of a "Jewish Canon" within Judaism. It is noteworthy that it took a number of centuries for such a "Jewish Canon" to take form and be received as normative within Judaism.

Whatever path the Jewish Rabbinate took isn't binding on the Church anymore than what path the Church took would be binding on the Jewish religion. So the question of what books belong in the Christian Bible cannot be answered by what books were ultimately accepted or rejected among rabbinical Jews in the first few centuries AD. Rabbinical authority is of no consequence in Christianity, just as Ecclesiastical authority has no meaning in Judaism. Christianity and Judaism split apart from one another, as Christians made their identity not as Jews, but as Christians--followers of Jesus as the Messiah, who embraced both Jewish and Gentile members without distinction.

I agree with this as a fair summary of the position that Christians both in ancient times and in modern times regard Jewish rabbinical authority. But I would point out that in recent decades movements have arisen which appear to lend a far greater authority to Jewish custom and practises than was so in the past.

So whatever conversation we are going to have about the Deuterocanonical books should be within the context of the Church. What those outside of Christianity think about these books isn't relevant.

Agreed.

Can Christians have disagreements over the Biblical Canon and still be Christians together?

Yes.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Amen to this, and to the need for open-minded and uniting souls needed for these kinds of initiatives. Which is probably why I disagree as strongly as I do over wording like “does it bother you to have 300 pages missing from your bible” which seems diametrically opposed to the spirit of brotherhood that you envision here.

As observed in one of my previous posts, you are responsible for your own perceptions. And as I implied in that earlier post, I do not hold the views that your post indicated were your perception.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The preface has also been removed from the original King James. The preface recognized a number of previous Biblical translations into English. Even today a lot of people today don't know of the numerous Catholic translations into English long before the first Protestant translation appeared.

Agreed, and there were translations into German, Italian, Spanish, and other languages in the era before Martin Luther's excommunication in 1521 AD.

 

[John Caldwell]

They are canonical indeed as defined by the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Jewish opinions apply to Jewish religion and catholic teaching applies to Catholic Christians.

I don't get it.

Ate you saying your Catholic Bible is missing pages compared to another Catholic Bible or are you asking why not all Christian Bibles contain the same pages as Catholic Bibles?

If the former, then I don't know. That is strange. If the latter there are good reasons.

 

[Tuur]

I have a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is a King James Version with all of the canonical books included (73 of them), but with seven of them and parts of two more in a kind of intertestamental appendix, as is the custom with the KJV. And I have numerous Catholic bibles with 73 canonical books. And I have some Protestant versions with only 66 books in them which means about 288 to 300 pages are missing from the 66 book versions. What do you good people do when you think about the missing pages? Does it bother you or are you happy as happy can be to have around 300 pages missing from your bible?

It depends on canon. In general, Protestants don't recognize all of the books that Roman Catholics do, and I think there are differences with Eastern Orthodox and maybe Ethiopian. There are all sorts of arguments for and against the canon of each. The King James Version once contained the same books, and I'm not sure at what point they were dropped. I don't think the Jewish canon recognizes these books.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't get it.

Ate you saying your Catholic Bible is missing pages compared to another Catholic Bible or are you asking why not all Christian Bibles contain the same pages as Catholic Bibles?

If the former, then I don't know. That is strange. If the latter there are good reasons.

The original post explains the matter.

 

[Valletta]

It depends on canon. In general, Protestants don't recognize all of the books that Roman Catholics do, and I think there are differences with Eastern Orthodox and maybe Ethiopian. There are all sorts of arguments for and against the canon of each. The King James Version once contained the same books, and I'm not sure at what point they were dropped. I don't think the Jewish canon recognizes these books.

Maccabees contains the reference from Hebrews about those who were tortured because of their belief in resurrection so understandably it was dropped by most Jews after Jesus rose from the dead.