Missing books and chapters in the Bible

[GodLovesCats]

I read on Google the Old Testament originally had 14 Apocrypha books. However, on the list of missing books is additional text in Esther, which means the Vatican took out 13 plus, not a full 14 OT books. In addition, some books were removed from the New Testament.

I also have seen only seven books were removed from the Bible. Where did this come from?

Also, if the Vatican removed the Apocryphal books and chapters, why are Roman Catholics still reading them?

 

[Albion]

Also, if the Vatican removed the Apocryphal books and chapters, why are Roman Catholics still reading them?

They are reading some of them. You seemed to me to be making this very point in your own post.

Prior to the Reformation, these books were not accepted as unquestionably part of the canon of Scripture by the Catholic Church and they were, in fact, not accepted in the same form--the same books--throughout the Christian world before then either.

And then the Roman Catholic Church responded to the Protestants by making some changes in the listing of Apocryphal books that it was going to consider to be part of Holy Scripture thereafter..

 

[Firewatchduty]

A little off topic, read the book of Enoch its pretty mind blowing.

 

[crossnote]

I read on Google...

First mistake.

 

[HTacianas]

I read on Google the Old Testament originally had 14 Apocrypha books. However, on the list of missing books is additional text in Esther, which means the Vatican took out 13 plus, not a full 14 OT books. In addition, some books were removed from the New Testament.

I also have seen only seven books were removed from the Bible. Where did this come from?

Also, if the Vatican removed the Apocryphal books and chapters, why are Roman Catholics still reading them?

You have that the other way around I'm afraid. The Christian canon has always contained the books of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a collection of Jewish books -an old testament if you will- compiled prior to Christianity. Those books were "officially" canonized by several Christian Synods in the fifth century. That canon has always included those books you mentioned, often referred to as the "apocrypha".

The modern Jewish canon was not "officially" established until late first century AD after the destruction of the Jewish temple. That canon does not include the apocrypha. During the protestant reformation, circa sixteenth century, some protestants took issue with those books and they were finally removed entirely from protestant bibles around one hundred years ago.

The new testament canon was formalized by the same Christian Synods in the fifth century from books considered authentic by those Synods based on which books had been accepted through tradition. Other books were rejected by those synods, including authentic letters written by sub-apostolic fathers, pious frauds, and gnostic forgeries.

 

[Albion]

You have that the other way around I'm afraid. The Christian canon has always contained the books of the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a collection of Jewish books -an old testament if you will- compiled prior to Christianity. Those books were "officially" canonized by several Christian Synods in the fifth century. That canon has always included those books you mentioned, often referred to as the "apocrypha".

Included, yes. As opposed to excluded. But their status as part of the canon was not
decided then.

 

[HTacianas]

Included, yes. As opposed to excluded. But their status as part of the canon was not
decided then.

So when was it decided?

 

[GodLovesCats]

They are reading some of them. You seemed to me to be making this very point in your own post.

Prior to the Reformation, these books were not accepted as unquestionably part of the canon of Scripture by the Catholic Church and they were, in fact, not accepted in the same form--the same books--throughout the Christian world before then either.

And then the Roman Catholic Church responded to the Protestants by making some changes in the listing of Apocryphal books that it was going to consider to be part of Holy Scripture thereafter.

What prompted the Pope's decision to bring some books back?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Apparently this topic did not generate enough interest.

 

[PloverWing]

which means the Vatican took out 13 plus

Also, if the Vatican removed the Apocryphal books and chapters, why are Roman Catholics still reading them?

This is the second time in about a year that I've seen the claim on CF that the Vatican removed books from the canon. (The earlier discussion was this one: Why did the vatican remove 14 books from bible?) You said you found this idea in a Google search; can I ask what web site supplied the information? It's a really odd idea, and since it's come up multiple times, I'm curious about whether there's an odd web site out there that people are running into.

Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians disagree about exactly which books belong in the OT canon, but Catholics use a larger canon than Protestants do, not a smaller one, so it wouldn't have been the Vatican that removed books. That's why the claim about the Vatican seems so strange to me.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Well, it seems I posted the truth about who removed them. This is not the source I used though - Google itself has the informaiton in its search questions section.

Why Did The Vatican Remove 14 Books From The Bible in 1684?

 

[PloverWing]

Thanks for the pointer to this web site. There are multiple problems with the claims on the web site (and note the complete lack of scholarly footnotes), but one big issue is that the site seems to be talking about the history of the King James translation into English, in 1611 and subsequent editions. By 1611, England had broken with Rome. King James was not Catholic and did not answer to the Vatican. So, any complaints about the books included or excluded from the King James Version are actually complaints about the policies of the Church of England.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Agreed, that website has as many historical errors as the Da Vinci Code.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Does this mean 1611 is the wrong year?

 

[PloverWing]

Does this mean 1611 is the wrong year?

It means that "the Vatican took out 14 books" is an event that never happened.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So who removed the books?

 

[JackRT]

King James was not Catholic and did not answer to the Vatican.

Actually James VI of Scotland was Roman Catholic. In order to assume the throne of England as James I he had to renounce his Catholicism. He had his priorities and he made his choice accordingly. Power corrupts doesn't it?

 

[Tutorman]

So who removed the books?

Protestants

 

[GodLovesCats]

Actually James VI of Scotland was Roman Catholic. In order to assume the throne of England as James I he had to renounce his Catholicism. He had his priorities and he made his choice accordingly. Power corrupts doesn't it?

So he changed his thorne succession number to make himself appear to be the first kind named James?

 

[JackRT]

So he changed his thorne succession number to make himself appear to be the first kind named James?

On the Scottish throne he was the sixth James but he became the first James on the English throne but he remained king of both.