Why did Protestants remove books from the Bible?

Just a simple suggestion, but one which I have found to be quite handy. When I want to learn an answer to a question I have about other Christians I usually check out their forum and see if it isn't addressed there. If it isn't, I usually PM someone there who I think can answer it for me and, occasionally, as the situation warrants, will actually post a thread with that question.

I suggest (and it is only my suggestion) that if you want to know "why did Protestants remove books from the Bible" you ask a Protestant or a Lutheran (if you think Luther was the culprit). You might not agree with their answers, but at least you will know why, rather than hearing the standard responses in the OBOB forum.

D'Ann said:

Yes... exactly. I do think especially near the end of his life, he was truly in mental and physical and emotional as well as spiritual pain.

Click to expand...

I think so, too. Which is very unfortunate. To suffer so desperately is a very traumatic thing... and the Evil One certainly took advantage of Luther's struggles.

Interesting video--- helped clarify my beliefs on this

SecretofFatima,

In a word, no.

His point, as I understand it, is that the Church determined the canon of both the Old and New Testaments. While this is true for the New Testament, the canon of the Old Testament had been established by the Jews prior to the birth of Christ. The question becomes, does the Church have the right to add to the canon of the Old Testament already established by God through his coveneant people, the Jews?

I think these 7 extra books are definetely very great to get an insight of how people worshiped, and Jewish thought. But they all have late dating, and seemed to only be excepted by the alexandrian hellenistic Jews (who, in itself, was a lot more liberal then the palestinian Jews.)

I am not a theist, but perhaps(according to Christian thought) these books are inspired because even though there were written by no prophet(due to their late dating), could still be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I fail to understand why the Holy spirit would be right on some, but wrong on others, as Protestants seem to say.

That being said.. There are many books in the OT (especially mentioned in Kings and Chronicles) that we no longer have. Book of Jasher, Samuel the Seer, among many others that we just do not find.) So it is an interesting deal!

david01 said:

SecretofFatima,

In a word, no.

His point, as I understand it, is that the Church determined the canon of both the Old and New Testaments. While this is true for the New Testament, the canon of the Old Testament had been established by the Jews prior to the birth of Christ. The question becomes, does the Church have the right to add to the canon of the Old Testament already established by God through his coveneant people, the Jews?

Click to expand...

You are partially true. It depends on who you ask.

Some say the Tanach was canonized at the "council of the Great Assembly", which happened during the time of Ezra. However,
most do not agree.

Others say the Council of Jamnia.. At this council, there is said to have been a ton of debating regarding Song of Solomon and Ecclessestes.

Now Josephous mentioned 22 books, instead of 24 (Note that Jews classify many books as one, such as the Kings, 12 Prophets, etc.) However, some say he merged Jeremiah with Lamentations, and Ruth with Judges.

The Canon(at least for palestine) was pretty well established at 24 books. But there was not a consensual agreement. Also, keep in mind that the Hellenistic Jews had a bigger and more liberal canon.

David01, I understand what you are saying, if anybody really wants to get a deep understanding of how the differant bibles were formed we should take in a very wide view of all the facts and do a lot of research, but we also like to be able to talk about things amongst ourselves

ladybug1980 said:

Do Catholic Bibles today contain the extra books that the other Bibles don't have? Also, if I am not mistaken, are those extra books called the Apocrypha? Other sources make it sound as if the Apocrypha was bad or somethingI'm not sayin' that though.

Click to expand...

I would change your wording from "extra books" to "original books"

Thanks, all, for the responses.

First, Rhamiel, I understand and respect the desire to discuss things among yourselves. I do it all the time, myself. However, sometimes I have a question where I am familiar with the responses from my peers, so I seek out answers from other sources in order to get a broader perspective. In this case, I am benefitting from that perspective, although I did not initiate the discussion.

I think the debate regarding the means and timing of the closure of the Jewish canon will never end. The simple fact is that the Tanach does not include the seven books of the apocrypha, nor has it for centuries, if not millenia. One might argue that, however the Tanach was determined, the Jews did not have God's directon and inspiration in doing so. However, similar charges have been leveled at the Church, as well. As for eliminating two centuries of Jewish history from the Old Testament, one wonders where the most recent two millenia should be. Jewish history did not end in A.D. 0. A Jewish perspective of the Tanach divides it into the Law and the Prophets. The Law (commmonly known as Torah) is the first five books of the Bible. The Prophets are the remainder. One of the reasons for the hot debate over Ecclisiastes and the Song of Solomon was that they are not prophetic in their content. However, given their attribution to Solomon, the son of David (considered to be a prophet) they are included. The Aprocrypha, unfortunately, lacks both prophetic teaching and prophetic authorship.

All that being said, this concern is somewhat of a tempest in a teacup, in my opinion. Having read, and enjoyed, the Apocrypha (which I might sadly add that the majority of Roman Catholics have not done) I find nothing there in terms of doctrinal content to distance one branch of Christianity from another. I find it to be an interesting set of historical accounts. It is interesting to me that the writers of the New Testament made reference to all of the books of the Tanach (except Esther) but none of the books of the Apocrypha.

Of course, the response will be that the Apocrypha sets forth a major doctrine (Purgatory). As anyone who has read the Apocrypha and studied that doctrine knows, the doctrine depends on one single verse which, by itself, is surprisingly vague. It is comparable to the Latter Day Saints building a major doctrine on I Corinthians 15:29. If this doctrine was so evident then churches which also retain the Apocrypha, such as the Eastern Orthodox churches would have adopted it long before the Great Schism, Likewise, the Jews would have accepted it, as well.

As it is, I believe that Martin Luther was correct in saying that the Apocrypha is excellent literature, but it is not the Word of God.

david01 said:

.....As it is, I believe that Martin Luther was correct in saying that the Apocrypha is excellent literature, but it is not the Word of God.

Click to expand...

You are right, ignore centries of guidence of the Holy Ghost and thousands of church fathers and Traditional purpose fullfilled teachings from these original books for the rants of one man who had a chip on his shoulder and took his toys and ran away from home.

Now, I am not saying he didn't have valid points against the bishops at that time and earthly actions of the church at that time, but he dealt with it all wrong. And leading millions away from the fullness of salvation just might not have been too good of an idea.....

I non-catholic asked a question in OBOB, if she wanted a protestant view I am sure she would have gon to GT, CC, MC or any of the other sub-forums on CF, if this was just a bunch of catholics talking about the Bible then that would be one thing, but it is someone from outside the Church asking the catholic view on something
The Orthodox have the doctrine of Theosis, while not the same as purgatory it has a lot in common with it,

One might argue that, however the Tanach was determined, the Jews did not have God's directon and inspiration in doing so. However, similar charges have been leveled at the Church, as well.

Click to expand...

well if we leval that charge agianst the Church then we must throw out the whole Bible as only man made and not of value. Either the process of picking the cannon was just as God inspired as the writting of the gospels or it is of no value because even if a book is inspired by God what assurance do you have that the other books in the Bible are too? or that any of them are?

stivvy said:

I would change your wording from "extra books" to "original books"

Click to expand...

Ok

Fantine said:

The reason the apocryphal books are not universally accepted is because they are not extant in Hebrew and are not part of the Jewish Old Testament.

Although they were only universally added to the Catholic Bible at the Council of Trent, they had appeared in many copies of the Bible as early as the 4th and 5th centuries. Eastern Rite Churches also include these apocryphal books in the Bible.

And, apparently, the early King James Bible also included these books in a separate section for apocryphal books.

Click to expand...

No. not universally added to the catholic Bible at the Council of Trent.

They were canonised with all the other books that the universal Church used in 382 by Pope Damasus 1. They appeared in all Bibles not just some.

This list was re-affirmed by the Copuncil of Hippo in 393, the Thrid Council of Carthage in 397, and the fourth Council of carthage in 419 - also in later councils.

When St. Jerome did his tranlation in to Latin (published 405), which became the standard for the Western Church it included all the books in use today by Catholics. What do you think Luther had in his Bible before he apostacised?

ladybug1980 said:

Do Catholic Bibles today contain the extra books that the other Bibles don't have? Also, if I am not mistaken, are those extra books called the Apocrypha? Other sources make it sound as if the Apocrypha was bad or somethingI'm not sayin' that though.

Click to expand...

Do Catholic Bibles today contain the extra books that the other Bibles don't have? Also, if I am not mistaken, are those extra books called the Apocrypha? Other sources make it sound as if the Apocrypha was bad or somethingI'm not sayin' that though.

Click to expand...

The Deuterocanon of the Vulgate (Catholic official Bible) and the Eastern Orthodox (Greek Septuagint) are not exactly the same. Also the bible of the Ethiopian Coptic church contains the book of Enoch, and did even in the time when this branch of the church was united with the rest of the Catholic world.

All this is to say that there were small differences of text in the different linguistic and cultural traditions of the ancient church, and canon was never formaly closed by the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent.

Also it should be noted that when Jerome translated ancient texts into the latin Vulgate, he used the Masoetic texts more familiar to the Jewish rabbinical tradition rather than the Greek Septuagint which was the text used by the earliest Christians. St Jerome thus was never too personally particular about much of the Deutocanons which just did not exist in Hebrew.

It should be noted too that the version of Hebrew originally used to translate the Septuagint was slightly different than the Masoetic text used by the Jewish rabbinical tradition. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that this the Septuagint remains true to this form of the Herew test rather than the Masoretic. Hence tt should not be seen as an approximate translation of the Masoertic text. It just used a different Hebrew source text that the post-christian rabbinical Jewish tradition chose to set their own canon with.

Apocrphyal literature means hidden. It generally referes to ancient pseudo-christian and gnostic literature that was rejected as being suitable for scripture. As such Catholics reject apocraphal literature too and just do not use that term when referrring to the deuterocanon. Deutero itself means twice said, which means that whatever is in theologically important in the deuterocanon is already in the rest of the canon. Deutocanon just adds flavor, and elucidation and context to better understand this theology.

It was a complicated process. It is not all black and white as to how the Bible came to be composed.

"All that being said, this concern is somewhat of a tempest in a teacup, in my opinion. Having read, and enjoyed, the Apocrypha (which I might sadly add that the majority of Roman Catholics have not done) I find nothing there in terms of doctrinal content to distance one branch of Christianity from another. I find it to be an interesting set of historical accounts. It is interesting to me that the writers of the New Testament made reference to all of the books of the Tanach (except Esther) but none of the books of the Apocrypha."

I'm really sorry but I have studied the matter and first they are not Apocrypha in the first place, that was a protestant error.
Second, they were extensively quoted by Jesus and Paul in the NT. Jesus was even celebrating the feast of Light that is in the book of Maccabees. And yes Jesus even quoted the book of Enoch so the Ethiopians might have been right.
Third, there was no fixed Jewish cannon in the first centuries. The Saducees only regarded as inspired the Pentateuch, the Pharisees had the Masoretic cannon. The Escenes used the Septuagint as also did the Diaspora Jews. The Samaritans used a diferent version of the Pentateuch.
Fourth. Many of the Deuterocannonical books were in fact written in hebrew and translated into Greek as modern linguistic scholarship and archeological findings has proved. For example there were fragments of the Macabees in hebrew.
Fifth. Do you thing that doctrines contained in those books like praying for the dead, praying for the saints and purgatory, that made some "Bible Believing" protestants call the Catholics and Orthodox apostates, do not make a big difference between christian denominations?
Sixth. The early christians used the Septuagint version of the Bible, the evangelists, the apostles and Jesus Himself, made all their quotes from that text, not from the Masoretic text used by the Pharisees. And that text included the deuterocannonicals.
Seventh. The supposed Jamma shul (it was a school not a council) ban of the deuterocannonicals also banned all the new testaments books including the earliest Gospels. So is someone is going to seek the Jamma ban of the deuterocannonicals as God inspired it also should reject the Gospels too.
As I read in a secular, non religious book on the Old Testament, the reason that the deuterocannonicals were banned even if the Jews today follow many of the traditions of book like the Maccabees is that those book were used by the early Christians in their polemics with the Jews.
I thing that history and modern linguistic biblical scholarship support the inclusion of those books in the Christian Bible. In fact I read a Jewish scholar said that those books are prechristian and in fact do belong in the New Testament. The Jamma Shul saw them in the same way.

I think in some ways this comes down to "Why should I trust this 16th century guy, Martin Luther, to tell me which books should be in the bible?". Who put him in charge? It obviously wasn't the Church, and he doesn't claim to be a prophet, so it wasn't God directly (by his own admission). So, basically, at best, he's a theologian with his own individual theological opinions.

One of Luther's theological opinions was that we should use scripture alone to determine things. So, how can we use scripture to determine scripture if we don't know what scripture is to begin with? It's impossible. And if we use the commonly agreed upon books to determine it, we probably wind up with the deutrocanon in there anyhow, because it seems to be referenced in the New Testament. Now, granted, that doesn't make it a slam dunk that the deutrocanon should be included, but what else are you going to use from the rest of scripture to determine it other than what I meantion? The criteria Luther himself used for determining his personal canon was from himself and not the bible he wanted us all to limit ourselves to, ironically.

The other thing to consider is that Luther wanted to also remove the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation from the bible. He failed in making that case to his supporters, but he wanted to do it. If one is going to follow his criteria, one should omit them as well. But people don't because his criteria make little sense, even according to his own theology.

Finally, I also think it is worth noting, as I think others have already alluded to, that the Jewish canon was finalized circa 70-100 AD. According to most Christian theology (This is something Catholics and Lutherans can agree on), on Pentecost (circa 30-40 AD), the people of God on earth was the Church, which had authority over God's gifts, including scripture. What the religious Jews did after that is somewhat irrelevant, because they no longer were God's community on earth. The Church is the New Israel, theologically speaking.

In fact, some of the reasoning the Jews used for excluding the deutrocanonicals was that they were too Greek and too Christian, at a time when Judiasm (following the destruction of the temple) was at risk of being absorbed into Christianity and paganism, and thus wanted to provide more of a firewall against people leaving. I don't see why Christians would want to accept their judgment, given that it would imply that these books were too universal for a universal Church and too Christian for a Christian Church.

Thanks, CoyoteWild, for shedding some real light on the issue.

To all those who take offence at the word, Apocrypha, I do sincerely apologize. I must admit, however, that I do not see much, if anything, that is repetitious of other Old Testament books. They are historical accounts of events occuring in the two centuries prior to the Christian Era.

As for this being a question posed by a Non-Catholic on OBOB, I have visited SecretOfFatima's homepage and she identifies herself as a Catholic. Is this not true, SecretOfFatima?

Please cite chapters and verses where Jesus and Paul quoted from the seven books in question. Although Hanukkah was celebrated by Jesus does not mean that there was, of necessity a divine commandment to do so. The only divinely commanded Jewish holy days are given in the Pentateuch. To this day, the Jews, like Christians, celebrate days not spelled out in scripture.

At the risk of seeming flippant, there is a difference between cannon and canon. However, that is an insignificant point. The point is that by some process and at some point in time (which remains entirely moot) the Jewish canon was fixed and remains as fixed today as the New Testament canon is to Christians. That the Jewish canon omits the seven books in question is a well-known fact.

My point concerning Purgatory remains the same. An enormous doctrine has been constructed on one single verse. This verse does not begin to address most of the aspects of that doctrine (and I am being generous in thinking that it actually provides any basis to the core theology of the doctrine - praying and performing works in order to expedite the release of a soul from a spiritual prison0. As for the rest of the seven books in question, I know of no doctrines of any sort which have been developed by any church in contradistinction to other Christian bodies or to orthodox Christianity in general.

A Jewish shul is not a school, although the words have similar origins. Although education and debate are carried on in a shul, it would be like comparing Christ's teaching of His disciples with a modern seminary. Similarities, yes, but many differences.

I do not know of anyone who considers the seven books in question as belonging in the first century, and, thus, the New Testament.

To be quite honest, I cannot imagine how these books could have been used by the early Christians in their polemics with Jews.

I often wonder what Martin Luther would think of the high praise given to him for being the source of all this contention. The simple facts of history are clear that Luther hardly was the only person during the Protestant Reformation (or even prior to it) who rejected these seven books. It is so wonderfully easy to set Luther up as a strawman and burn him in effigy at the stake. The reality is that if his argument was as entirely bogus as many Catholics believe, he would have gone no where with it. He held lots of opinions, some of which were, indeed bogus. We never hear of those now, do we?