The Catholic Church added books to the Bible???

[Woodsy]

In seeking a fuller understanding of Evangelical Protestant theology, I've been reading Pastor Mark Driscoll's book Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. I understand that Pastor Mark's got some things about him which are controversial, but it seems to me that his theology is pretty mainstream.
One thing that he asserts in his book is that Catholics added books to the Bible. He therefore rejects the Catholic canon.

My understanding (which may or may not be accurate) is that the canon was compiled by the Church when there was only one Church, and that the canon included all of the books which currently comprise the Catholic canon. It was not until Martin Luther that books were removed from the Bible, thus creating what is now the Protestant canon. (And we know that Martin Luther wanted to remove other books as well, including Revelation)
IIRC, the Jewish canon was translated into Greek with the Septuagint being the result. The early Christians, being for the most part Jews, used the Septuagint as their scriptures.
After Christ, the Jews removed books such as the two books of Maccabees, Sirach, etc. from their canon, at the council of Yavneh (aka Jamnia). These books had always had a secondary status, but now were removed from the Jewish canon. (An interesting note here is the fact that although Jews today celebrate Chanukah, the events surrounding that holiday occur nowhere in their own scriptures except in Maccabees, which they removed from their canon! So, only the Catholic canon supports Chanukah.)

My question: All of that being said, how can Protestants assert that "Catholics added books to the Bible" when it seems clear from the historical record that Protestants actually removed books from the Bible?

Please note that what I am saying and asking here is meant in a spirit of peace and hopefully greater knowledge and understanding on my part. It is not my intent to anger or provoke anyone. Thank you.

 

[laconicstudent]

In seeking a fuller understanding of Evangelical Protestant theology, I've been reading Pastor Mark Driscoll's book Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. I understand that Pastor Mark's got some things about him which are controversial, but it seems to me that his theology is pretty mainstream.
One thing that he asserts in his book is that Catholics added books to the Bible. He therefore rejects the Catholic canon.

My understanding (which may or may not be accurate) is that the canon was compiled by the Church when there was only one Church, and that the canon included all of the books which currently comprise the Catholic canon.

You would be right, and Driscol would be wrong. Anyone can look up the patristic texts in which the Church Fathers quote and advocate for the Deuterocanon, and the councils which establish the canon.

 

[ebia]

In reality the idea of canon defines the New Testament.

The early church took on the Old Testament from the Jews, but it wasn't a tighly defined thing.

Like many things, tight defintions are only wanted when people are fighting over other stuff, by which time its too late for consensus. If one insists on defining an Old Testament canon (which I'm not sure is a sustainable idea) the answer one will get will depend on what assumptions you take as the foundation.

 

[Woodsy]

I think I understand what you are saying, ebia, but it also seems that the Jews were extremely focused on the written word and had an existing body of accepted literature at the time of Christ. So I don't think that the idea of a canon is as nebulous as you seem to be saying.
The very existence of the Septuagint demonstrates that a coherent body of writings was considered accepted and important.

 

[ebia]

I think I understand what you are saying, ebia, but it also seems that the Jews were extremely focused on the written word and had an existing body of accepted literature at the time of Christ. So I don't think that the idea of a canon is as nebulous as you seem to be saying.
The very existence of the Septuagint demonstrates that a coherent body of writings was considered accepted and important.

They certainly had a body of Scripture, but the precise boundaries of that body wasn't defined.

 

[wayseer]

My question: All of that being said, how can Protestants assert that "Catholics added books to the Bible" when it seems clear from the historical record that Protestants actually removed books from the Bible?

The idea of a canon is something on which to base the authority of the Church.

 

[ebia]

The idea of a canon is something on which to base the authority of the Church.

eh?

 

[revanneosl]

My question: All of that being said, how can Protestants assert that "Catholics added books to the Bible" when it seems clear from the historical record that Protestants actually removed books from the Bible?

Ignorance and parochialism, mostly.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I've been reading the Wisdom of Solomon the past two days and anyone who doesn't have it in their Bible is really missing out. It presents such a clear teaching on the divinity of the Word and Wisdom of God (Christ). It also has some of the clearest referneces to the Trinity of any book of the OT. You can tell it that really points to Christ.

 

[laconicstudent]

I've been reading the Wisdom of Solomon the past two days and anyone who doesn't have it in their Bible is really missing out. It presents such a clear teaching on the divinity of the Word and Wisdom of God (Christ). It also has some of the clearest referneces to the Trinity of any book of the OT. You can tell it that really points to Christ.

But the righteous live forever, and their reward is with the Lord; the Most High takes care of them. Therefore they will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord, because with his right hand he will cover them, and with his arm he will shield them.

Wisdom of Solomon 5.15-16

 

[Woodsy]

Ignorance and parochialism, mostly.

1. revanneosl, your faith icon tells me that you are Methodist and therefore a Protestant. Do you accept the Deuterocanonical books?

2. I was really hoping to also hear from Protestants who oppose the Deuterocanonical books. I am sincerely interested in their reasoned opposition to these books being included in the canon.

I want to understand opposing views.

 

[revanneosl]

1. revanneosl, your faith icon tells me that you are Methodist and therefore a Protestant. Do you accept the Deuterocanonical books?

2. I was really hoping to also hear from Protestants who oppose the Deuterocanonical books. I am sincerely interested in their reasoned opposition to these books being included in the canon.

I want to understand opposing views.

My church does not recognize the canonical authority of the deuterocanonical books, and does not include them in our lectionary. However, I have personally found them to be of immense spiritual value. I read them, along with the writings of the Fathers, at morning and evening prayer.

 

[Woodsy]

My church does not recognize the canonical authority of the deuterocanonical books, and does not include them in our lectionary. However, I have personally found them to be of immense spiritual value. I read them, along with the writings of the Fathers, at morning and evening prayer.

Why does the Methodist Church exclude these books from their canon, and do you agree with them? I read what you wrote about the deuterocanon, but I am asking whether you think they should be part of the Biblical canon and used by your denomination. Thanks for your contributions to this thread, by the way - I was getting lonely in here.

 

[revanneosl]

Why does the Methodist Church exclude these books from their canon, and do you agree with them? I read what you wrote about the deuterocanon, but I am asking whether you think they should be part of the Biblical canon and used by your denomination. Thanks for your contributions to this thread, by the way - I was getting lonely in here.

The Methodist family of denominations (we went on a schism-spree for a while in the 19th century) excluded the deuterocanonical books from our inception, mainly I think due to a sort of theological inertia. We split off from the Church of England, you see, and took with us an edited version of their Articles of Religion - among which is the listing of books of the Bible that we accept as canon.

The Church of England excluded them because when it came time to write their Articles of Religion the power happened to be in the hands of some very Reform-minded bishops.

At this point in our history, I'd have to say that there is absolutely no chance that the UMC will adopt the usage of the deuterocanon in any official way. The vast majority of our membership is quite far from the "middle road" of Anglican Christianity, and deep into Evangelical Protestant territory.

As to whether they "should" or not - I'm pretty much of two minds. On the one hand, my theology of the inspiration of scripture is a pretty "low" one. I believe that the deuterocanonical books are just as inspired as some of the canonical ones. On the other hand, the political chaos and fighting that would be attendant upon adding them to the UM canon would cause such enormous pain and division that I think it should be avoided.

No doubt the canon we currently have "contains all things necessary for salvation." I swore I believed this at my ordination, and I'm happy to still maintain it.

 

[wayseer]

eh?

The Church draws its authority from the canon - which is why it is called 'canon'.