Missing pages from one's bible

[Xeno.of.athens]

how could something exist before it's existence? Are you saying that because there were no 66 books in the bible before all 66 books were written

I am very sorry, I must not have stated the matter clearly enough. Let me try once more.

I have searched for PDF copies of bibles that were hand copied (manuscripts) from after the completion of the writings of the scriptures (around 100 AD) until the time of the protestant-revolt (a little after 1517 AD). Every bible I have found from those times has had more than 66 books in it, all of them had at least 73 books in them. That is what was meant when I wrote:

I've searched for PDF copies of bibles whose source document is either ancient or at least pre-protestant-revolt in time and I have not found any 66 book bibles from those times. I doubt that any such bibles existed.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

I am very sorry, I must not have stated the matter clearly enough. Let me try once more.

I have searched for PDF copies of bibles that were hand copied (manuscripts) from after the completion of the writings of the scriptures (around 100 AD) until the time of the protestant-revolt (a little after 1517 AD). Every bible I have found from those times has had more than 66 books in it, all of them had at least 73 books in them. That is what was meant when I wrote:

​

​

​

are you talking about the bibles that were catholic at the time? The catholic church was the reason for most bibles up until martin luther made them available to most due to non latin.

 

[JSRG]

Are you concerned your Bible is "missing" 8 books found in the Ethiopian Bible? No? Then why should Protestants be concerned over disputed books that prior to Trent were never seen as having full canonical status,

While you can certainly point to some people who didn't regard them as canonical, the claim they "were never seen as having full canonical status" is simply false, as some certainly did see them as such.

and are still recognized as being a secondary canon?

Not in the Catholic Church they're not; they're just as canonical as the rest. The term "deuterocanonical" is not intended to say it recognizes them as a secondary canon, but as a way to differentiate books that are accepted by the Catholic Church but not most Protestants with books that neither the Catholic Church nor most Protestants accept as canonical (such as, say, the Shepherd of Hermas).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

are you talking about the bibles that were catholic at the time? The catholic church was the reason for most bibles up until martin luther made them available to most due to non latin.

Your post makes untrue assertions. Thanks for your time and effort in posting.

 

[Erose]

Are you concerned your Bible is "missing" 8 books found in the Ethiopian Bible?

No I am not.

Then why should Protestants be concerned over disputed books

IMO you should IF that is what has been decided by an authority that you accept. My question is by what authority do you accept the smaller OT canon? That is something that as far as I can tell is not quite clear in the history of Protestantism. What authority chose the Masoretic canon instead of the Christian one?

that prior to Trent were never seen as having full canonical status,

This is a false statement. Since the 4th century the canon has been set in the West. What Trent did was define the canon against the Protestant's rejection of it.

and are still recognized as being a secondary canon?

This is a false statement as well. The term "deuterocanonical" was coined by a Jewish convert turned Catholic theologian, Sixtus of Siena, in 1566 for debating purposes with Protestants. The Catholic Church has never viewed these writings as part of a secondary OT canon. Has there been individual theologians who have done so? Yes, with St Jerome being the most popular. But the official position of the Church has never viewed them as less than the rest of the OT. In fact if you want to put a Scriptures in tiers; one would say the writings of the OT to the Apostolic letters and then the highest being the Gospels.

There's nothing in them essential to the faith, so while they can be worth reading there's nothing really lost by their exclusion

I disagree. God being the God of the universe instead of just this world is not in the Protocanonical writings. What about God created the universe out of nothing? As just a few doctrines that all Christians take for granted.

 

[Erose]

you mean am i concerned i don't have added books of the bible? it says in that bible one should not add or take away, and it sounds like to get to 73 you would have to add

You do realize that the Bible is not A single writing. But rather a library of writings compiled into a single volume. The passage you speak of only refers to the Book of Revelation.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

You do realize that the Bible is not A single writing. But rather a library of writings compiled into a single volume. The passage you speak of only refers to the Book of Revelation.

so do you think Jesus is just ok with us adding to the bible so long as it's not to Revelation? i honestly believe it's referring to the whole bible and i'm not gonna be the one to test that theory

 

[Erose]

so do you think Jesus is just ok with us adding to the bible so long as it's not to Revelation? i honestly believe it's referring to the whole bible and i'm not gonna be the one to test that theory

I'm sure that our Lord would use His Church to give His people assurances for what should be in the Bible. That being said the passage YOU are referring to DOES NOT speak for any writing save for the Book of Revelations.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

I'm sure that our Lord would use His Church to give His people assurances for what should be in the Bible. That being said the passage YOU are referring to DOES NOT speak for any writing save for the Book of Revelations.

here are some verses other than on revalation confirming you should not add to or take away from scripture

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

here are some verses other than on revalation confirming you should not add to or take away from scripture
View attachment 323788

All of the Old Testament verses cannot be forbidding new scripture from being written because if they dd then the entire New Testament would be excluded by applying the "do not add" test that your post is advocating.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

you should not add to or take away from scripture

All of the books that are missing from Protestant bibles were written BEFORE the book of Revelation was written. All of them were part of the Old Testament that the Church used in the first centuries of the Christian era. They cannot be forbidden by anything said in Revelation because they were already in use among Christians before Revelation was written.

 

[Fervent]

Can you link me to a source establishing a significant number of Christian-produced Latin manuscripts with the 66 book canon predating 1300 AD?

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying, as I never claimed anything about exclusively Latin manuscripts, nor that it was common for Bible indexes to have exactly 66 books. Most Bible manuscripts were incomplete indexes, generally limited to local liturgical calendars. The 66 books are simply the ones for which there is no, or at least very limited, controversy. What I was denying was simply the claim that manuscripts universally held to a 73 book canon, especially with projects like Luther's which were aimed at creating a vulgur translation. It was common for such projects to re-examine canonical issues and each compiler to determine which books to include in their index.

 

[Fervent]

This one, that is to say, not being in the canon of Rabbinic Judaism, is the main argument to which Protestant apologists appeal.

If you're thinking of LXX manuscripts from very early times your claim could be argued, but it would be argued from a lack of manuscripts rather than from well attested and numerous manuscripts showing wide variation in the content of the complete "bible". However, when large numbers of manuscripts of the complete bible are considered - and these are not from the first to fourth centuries or earlier - then the seven books accepted by Catholics are frequently, perhaps universally, present.

"There are only four manuscripts that originally contained the whole Bible in Greek surviving from antiquity. Two of them may be viewed side by side in the British Library Sir John Ritblatt Treasures Gallery. Making a complete copy of a collection of writings as large as the Bible depended upon technology which only became available in the 4th century. Until then the Bible only seems to have been available in volumes containing one or a few books. The copies described here are fascinating individually, and together, they tell the story of the emergence of the Christian Bible as a book. ..." (source)​

From the same source

"Possibly the oldest complete Bible, certainly the oldest complete copy of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus was copied in the middle of the 4th century. It originally contained the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the 48 books of the Christian Old Testament and Apocrypha), the 27 books of the New Testament, and two more early Christian writings, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabas."​

In later centuries Latin manuscripts come to the fore in the west. And by the time printing was first used for mass production of books the 73 books (and more in some editions) were in the printed editions in Latin. Gutenberg's printed bible is well attested, and it has at least 73 books in it. A PDF of a Gutenberg bible is available here.

So, it is far more accurate to say that the best attested old* 'canon' as evidenced by written bibles that are still available is of at least 73 books.

* By "old" I mean either manuscript or early pre-protestant-revolt complete bibles. And by "complete bibles" I mean bibles that do not have missing pages that are known to be missing.

You seem mistaken about what I'm talking about for the indexes, as I am not talking about Bible indexes but Septuagint(LXX) indexes. While there are limited available, no single LXX index contained all 7 of the disputed books and it appears that this was the case not just for extant manuscripts, as early commenters varied on which, if any of them, were part of the official canon. I'm not arguing from a pre-existent 66 book canon, nor am I saying there were Bible indexes that were identical to the Protestant 66 book canon, but that the 66 books accepted by the Protestants are the ones that were essentially universally accepted(the NT antilegomena being excepted) by ancient compilers prior to Jerome, from whom the 73 book canon essentially became unofficial canon. While the exclusion from the Jewish canon and the KJV's reliance upon the MT was a major factor in limiting the canon, the Deuterocanonical books have always had some controversy. It's not as if Luther(and the other Reformers) simply decided to chuck books from the Bible on a lark, they were carrying on a tradition of scholastic criticism that up to Trent was always a part of professional theology.

 

[Vanellus]

It's a mistake to think the so-called Catholic church has only had one view of the matter. Neither Jerome nor Athaasius regarded the so-called Apocrypha as canonical. They were read for edification but not for establishing doctrine.

In the spring of A.D. 367, Athanasius put forth a Festal Letter, 1 in which he says, “Since we have spoken of the heretics as dead, and of ourselves as having the divine Scriptures for eternal life; and since some may be beguiled from their simplicity by the wiles of certain men, and may read other writings which are called Apocryphal, 2 and which ought not to be mingled with the Scripture which is inspired by God, it seems good to me to set down those Books which are known by us to be divine.” 3 He then specifies the Books of the Old Testament, twenty-two in number, 4 and the Books of the New Testament. These are precisely the same as in our own Canon of Scripture. He designates the Epistle to the Hebrews as an Epistle of St. Paul. “These,” he adds, “are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsteth may be filled with their oracles. In these alone is the doctrine of piety preached; let no one add to them, or take anything from them.”

The Scriptural Canon of Athanasius corresponds with that of the Council of Laodicea (Canon 6o), with the exception of the Apocalypse, which Athanasius specifies as a work of St. John, but which is not mentioned by the Council of Laodicea. He then adds that there is a third class of books, 5 not “indeed received into the Canon, but which our Fathers have decreed should be read by those who desire to be instructed in the words of piety. Such are the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the 'doctrine,' as they call it, 'of the Apostles,' and the Shepherd” (of Hermas).

This statement of Athanasius on the Canon of Holy Scripture is very important, coming as it does from one who had been about forty years a Bishop of the Church, and was in communion with all the faithful in the East and West. It may be said that it represents the judgment of the Church Catholic in the fourth century on the question, What Books are to be received as Canonical, i. e. as Divinely-inspired Scripture? And it justifies the course taken by the Church of England in this fundamental matter, in opposition to the Church of Rome, which in the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, on the 8th of April, 1546, affirmed that such books as Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees I. and II. are to be received as Canonical (i. e. as equally inspired with those of Moses and the Prophets, which our Lord received as such). Thus the Church of Rome does what Athanasius forbade, when he said, “Let no man add to these Canonical Books, or take anything from them.”

from http://www.bible-researcher.com/at...is not mentioned by the Council of Laodicea.

This idea, that the Jewish view on the canon of the Hebrew Bible should be rejected as irrelevant to Christians, in the same manner as the Muslim view on the Koran - is absolute nonsense and goes against the nature of the relationship between the two testaments, and between Christianity and Judaism.

 

[Fervent]

No I am not.

IMO you should IF that is what has been decided by an authority that you accept. My question is by what authority do you accept the smaller OT canon? That is something that as far as I can tell is not quite clear in the history of Protestantism. What authority chose the Masoretic canon instead of the Christian one?

This is a false statement. Since the 4th century the canon has been set in the West. What Trent did was define the canon against the Protestant's rejection of it.

This is a false statement as well. The term "deuterocanonical" was coined by a Jewish convert turned Catholic theologian, Sixtus of Siena, in 1566 for debating purposes with Protestants. The Catholic Church has never viewed these writings as part of a secondary OT canon. Has there been individual theologians who have done so? Yes, with St Jerome being the most popular. But the official position of the Church has never viewed them as less than the rest of the OT. In fact if you want to put a Scriptures in tiers; one would say the writings of the OT to the Apostolic letters and then the highest being the Gospels.

I disagree. God being the God of the universe instead of just this world is not in the Protocanonical writings. What about God created the universe out of nothing? As just a few doctrines that all Christians take for granted.

If it were true the canon was set from the 4th century, the Roman Catholic Church would have the exact same canon as the Eastern Orthodox. The idea that the canon was set since the 4th century is revisionist history that picked out a couple of local councils creating a canon for their liturgical calendar and claiming that it was a universal canon being set, but looking to Bible manuscripts that exist it becomes clear that there wasn't a fixed canon since most indexes vary in their inclusions. If the canon was set, there wouldn't have been continued scholarship on canonical questions which were matter of course. Trent's official declaration of a universal canon is what closed the door to such scholarship among Catholics, and the printing press making it easy for a single version to easily be reproduced and widely distributed made it unnecessary among Protestants.

As for authority, I hardly think I need a human being to confirm for me what God reveals and will have no intermediary in such a role. I am just as capable of investigating the historical record and weighing the issues at hand without a human being declaring for me that such is true. Especially an authority that has the track record of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It was common for such projects to re-examine canonical issues and each compiler to determine which books to include in their index.

I do not think that is so once the Middle Ages are reached. But, if you can show some specific examples before Martin Luther's German Bible, I'd welcome it. If you cannot then you will be in the same boat as I, namely, that the bibles in the west, when in Latin, were 73 or more books, and in German, Italian, Spanish, and other European languages were fairly careful to keep to the same material as was present in the Latin bibles.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's a mistake to think the so-called Catholic church has only had one view of the matter. Neither Jerome nor Athaasius regarded the so-called Apocrypha as canonical. They were read for edification but not for establishing doctrine.

Saints Jerome and Athanasius had opinions about books in the LXX, their opinions were not the same. Their opinions were not the teaching of the Catholic Church of their day - in their lifetime there was just one Church and it called itself the Catholic Church. Saint Augustine, who was contemporary with Saint Jerome, held to 73 books as canonical (73 when Baruch and Jeremiah are counted separately) and he also had Esther and Daniel in the form that Catholics today read and accept as canonical. The councils at Hippo (where Saint Augustine was bishop), and three at Carthage, and one in Rome all endorsed the 73 books that Catholics today accept as canonical. The council of Florence also ratified the canon it received from Hippo/Carthage/Rome, Trent ratified the same canon, Vatican II ratified it also. So, there is a very long history, stretching from 397 AD until 1965 AD where the Catholic Church has ratified a 73-book canon.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If it were true the canon was set from the 4th century, the Roman Catholic Church would have the exact same canon as the Eastern Orthodox.

In 397 AD a council in Carthage ratified a canon of 73 books as being the books read in the churches. A few years earlier a council in Hippo listed the same 73 books as canonical scripture. These were well attended (several hundred bishops) councils but they were nonetheless local/regional and not ecumenical. The East had its own business to attend to, problems with Arianism and a number of variant heresies occupied the attention of the bishops there.

Here is what Orthodoxy has to say on the canon, in summary form,

The Canon of Scripture​

Jews & Protestants:​

Old Testament Identical​

​

Catholic & Orthodox add:​

1) Tobit​

2) Judith​

3) Additions to Esther​

4) 1 Maccabees​

5) 2 Maccabees​

6) Wisdom of Solomon​

7) Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)​

8) Baruch​

9) Letter of Jeremiah​

Prayer of Azariah​

Additions to Daniel =​

10) Susanna​

11) Song of the Three Children​

12) Bel and the Dragon​

​

​

Orthodox only:​

1) 1 Esdras​

2) some claim - 2 Esdras​

3) Prayer of Manasseh​

4) Psalm 151​

5) 3 Maccabees​

6) 4 Maccabees (in appendix)​

7) some claim - The Book of Odes​

​

Protestant, Catholic & Orthodox:​

New Testament = books identical. ​

 

[Fervent]

I do not think that is so once the Middle Ages are reached. But, if you can show some specific examples before Martin Luther's German Bible, I'd welcome it. If you cannot then you will be in the same boat as I, namely, that the bibles in the west, when in Latin, were 73 or more books, and in German, Italian, Spanish, and other European languages were fairly careful to keep to the same material as was present in the Latin bibles.

One of Luther's staunchest critics himself engaged in similar canonical criticism, questioning not only the canonicity of some of the same books Luther moved to the appendix only really drawing flak for questioning the NT books. His name was Cajetan, have you heard of him?

It's true much of scholastic theology relied on speculative, rather than critical, scholarship so the disputes over canonicity had a bit of a lull from the "dark ages" until the Renaissance, but prior to Trent examining the historical record and questioning the canon was seen as perfectly legitimate(within certain bounds).

 

[Fervent]

In 397 AD a council in Carthage ratified a canon of 73 books as being the books read in the churches. A few years earlier a council in Hippo listed the same 73 books as canonical scripture. There were well attended (several hundred bishops) councils but they were nonetheless local/regional and not ecumenical. The East had its own business to attend to, problems with Arianism and a number of variant heresies occupied the attention of the bishops there.

Here is what Orthodoxy has to say on the canon, in summary form,

The Canon of Scripture​

Jews & Protestants:​

Old Testament Identical​

​

Catholic & Orthodox add:​

1) Tobit​

2) Judith​

3) Additions to Esther​

4) 1 Maccabees​

5) 2 Maccabees​

6) Wisdom of Solomon​

7) Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)​

8) Baruch​

9) Letter of Jeremiah​

Prayer of Azariah​

Additions to Daniel =​

10) Susanna​

11) Song of the Three Children​

12) Bel and the Dragon​

​

​

Orthodox only:​

1) 1 Esdras​

2) some claim - 2 Esdras​

3) Prayer of Manasseh​

4) Psalm 151​

5) 3 Maccabees​

6) 4 Maccabees (in appendix)​

7) some claim - The Book of Odes​

​

Protestant, Catholic & Orthodox:​

New Testament = books identical. ​

Thank you for providing this detail, I'm aware of the councils which as you say were local. Those councils, while worth noting, were not taken to be universally applicable precisely because they were local/regional and no ecumenical or wider council weighed in on the issue. While council declarations, as well as Damasus' decree are important to note when we're discussing the canon of the Bible they do not decide the matter except for among Roman Catholics and that dispute is a whole other kettle of fish.