The Catholic bible has 73 books, the Protestant only 66. Why is that? Were those 7 books removed by the Protestants, or added by the Catholics? Most importantly, do they belong in the Bible?
We’ll take a look at that today.
For starters, let’s all get on the same page. The following list is the 7 books that the Catholics include that the Protestants do not.
- Tobit
- Judith
- Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
- Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
- Baruch
- 1 Maccabees
- 2 Maccabees
The Catholic Bible also contains additional passages in the books of Esther and Daniel. It’s important to note that the Catholic and Protestant New Testaments are identical. They both contain the same 27 books.
Let’s dive in and see why Catholics include them and Protestants exclude them.
Two quick notes first
#1 Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical?
As a fairly unimportant side-note, these 7 books are called by both names. Apocrypha means “hidden” and deuterocanonical mean “second canon”. While Deuterocanonical could be considered more “correct”, they have been referred as both since the dawn of the church age. Several early church fathers (and Catholic saints) called them “apocryphal”.
I will use the terms interchangeably here.
#2 “Infallibly” part of the canon
The Catholic Church claims to be “infallible in matters of faith and morals“. Infallible means “free from the possibility of being wrong“. The Catholic Church officially and “infallibly” declared the disputed 7 books to part of the Bible. If the Catholic Church was indeed infallible, then there’s no point in further study because they can’t be wrong.
However, there’s good reason to believe they aren’t infallible. We look deeper into the question of the Catholic Church’s infallibility in this article here.
Why do the Catholics use these 7 books?
The Catholic sources say there were two main “canons” for the Old Testament at the time of Christ. The first was the “Palestine canon” which is identical to the Protestant Old Testament. The second was the “Alexandrian canon” which was the Septuagint.
The Catholics say that the Bible that Christ and the Apostles used was the “Alexandrian Canon” or Septuagint. The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (our Old Testament) from Hebrew into Greek.
The Catholics say the Septuagint contains the 7 extra books that are the topic of this article.
This next quote is from The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1907. It was given a Nihil Obstat by a Doctor of Sacred Theology, and an Imprimatur by an Archbishop. You can read the full text of the article here.
The ancient Greek Old Testament known as the Septuagint was the vehicle which conveyed these additional Scriptures into the Catholic Church. The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking, or Hellenist, Jews, whose intellectual and literary center was Alexandria.
According to the Catholics, the Septuagint was the Bible that Christ used. The basic reasoning goes: “if it was good enough for Christ, it’s good enough for us“.
That’s a reasonable argument if you believe Christ used the Septuagint. There is evidence on both sides of the debate, which we will examine later.
What is the Septuagint?
The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Bible (Our Old Testament) into Greek. There is a legend surrounding it’s creation/translation and few people would take it literally. However – as with many legends – there is probably a core of truth among it’s fantastical claims.
The legend goes like this:
King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt – who reigned from 283 BC to 246 BC – wanted a copy of the Hebrew Law (The first 5 books of our Old Testament) for the library at Alexandria. However, since Greek was the predominant language of the day, he wanted a Greek translation. Therefore Aristeas – one of his courtiers – composed a letter to the High Priest in Jerusalem. (this is called the Letter of Aristeas)
The letter arrived in at the temple in Jerusalem along with an envoy and lavish gifts. The High Priest then chooses 72 men (six from each tribe) to do the translating work. When the translators arrive back in Alexandria, they were greeted with 7 days of feasting. During the feast, Ptolemy II asked them many difficult questions and they answered wisely.
Then the translation began. According to the legend, each of the 72 translators (6 from each tribe) was put in a separate room to translate the Hebrew Law (The first 5 books of our Old Testament). They all finished the translation exactly 72 days later. When all of their translations were compared, they were found to be word-perfect identical to each other.
That was the Septuagint.
That’s the legend, and I do think it’s based on historical events.
It makes sense historically and I have no reason to doubt the broad strokes. Ptolemy probably wanted a Greek translation, he probably got the High Priest to send him translators, and they certainly translated it in Alexandria. We also have historical accounts by Jocephus and a few other historians who largely agree with this legend.
I highly doubt the word-perfect portion of the legend, but the basic story is likely true. We can’t be certain, but it’s quite likely.
However, that only accounts for the first 5 books.
No one quite knows when the rest of the Old Testament was translated into the Septuagint. The most common dates mentioned are between 150 BC and 130 BC. I haven’t seen anyone place the date any later than 130 BC, and 132 is a common date of completion.
Which Septuagint? Which Deuterocanonical books?
So we’ve only talked about the 7 books (and expanded chapters of Daniel and Esther) that the Catholic Church uses. However, they aren’t the only deuterocanonical books. The full list of books regarded as a “second canon” is a lot longer.
- 1 Esdras (not to be confused with the Book of Ezra, which is also sometimes called 1 Esdras or Esdras)
- 2 Esdras (not to be confused with Nehemiah, which is sometimes called 2 Esdras)
- Tobit
- Judith
- Additional verses in Esther
- Wisdom
- Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
- Baruch
- Epistle of Jeremiah (the last chapter in Baruch in Catholic Bibles)
- Song of the Three Children
- Story of Susanna
- Bel and the Dragon (additions to Daniel)
- Prayer of Manasseh
- 1 Maccabees
- 2 Maccabees
- 3 Maccabees
- 4 Maccabees
- Psalm 151
The Catholic Church only recognizes 7 of these, but some denominations recognize more. (some denominations have up to 84 books in their bible). However, The three earliest Greek manuscripts don’t contain those exact 7. They contain only some of the list. Notice the books below in red? Those books aren’t considered canon by the Catholic Church OR Protestants.
- The Codex Vaticanus (early-mid 4th century) is the oldest extant copy of the Greek Bible (and Septuagint) we have. It contains the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Judith, Tobit, Baruch, and the Letter to Jeremiah. However, it doesn’t contain any of the Macabees.
- The Codex Sinaiaticus (mid 4th century) contains: Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Fourth Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (sirach). It doesn’t contain 2nd Maccabees or Baruch.
- The Codex Alexandrius (early-mid 5th Century) Contains: Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Third Maccabees, Fourth Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and the Psalms of Solomon. It also doesn’t contain Baruch.
So there’s no help from the extant copies of the Bible to support those exact 7. This doesn’t meant he Catholics are wrong about those exact 7, but it does mean there’s very little manuscript support for those exact 7.
How the Jews view the Deuterocanonical books
The Jews traditionally never accepted them as scripture (which I’ll prove in a bit). However, they were highly regarded books. It might be like a book written by C.S. Lewis, or any other popular Christian author. They were held in high esteem, just not considered scripture. (which again, I’ll prove lower down)
Evidence the Deuterocanon should be in the Bible
Following are the strongest and most common reason Catholics cite that the Deuterocanon should be in the Bible.
Jesus and the Apostles quoted and/or alluded to the Deuterocanon
Yes they absolutely did…
…but they also quoted other books of the day that no one considers to be Canon. Wikipedia has a whole article about Non-Cannon books referenced by the Bible. Like writers today, the Bible authors alluded to popular works of the day to make a point.
The Bible references a LOT of different non-cannon works.
David Erwert said in his Book “A General Introduction to the Bible: From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations”:
Nestle’s Greek NT lists some 132 NT passages that appear to be verbal allusions to paracononical books, but that that is the kind of thing we would expect. Writers living at a given period in history tend to reflect the current language of the day.
Further, The New Testament writers also quote and reference a few Pagan books.
This is not evidence of anything by itself. It’s merely to say that just because the Bible quotes another book, that doesn’t make the other book inspired.
It’s also worth noting that none of the references or allusions to the Deuterocanon are proceeded by “As it is written” or a similar statement. Again, this isn’t evidence of anything per say, but it doesn’t mean you cannot use quotes by Jesus or the Apostles to prove the authority of the Dueterocanon.
“Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint and it includes the Deuterocanon, therefore they are scripture“
My father once told me to pay attention to the assumptions behind any statement. He said to answer the assumptions rather than the statement itself.
Sage words indeed, and they apply here.
The assumption is not that Jesus used the the Septuagint. (though there is good evidence He didn’t) The assumption is that because Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, it MUST be inspired.
Why?
Why do we assume that?
On what basis does that assumption rest? It’s dangerous to assume that a document is inerrant just because Jesus (may have) used it. (and further down, I’m going to make a strong case that Jesus didn’t use the Septuagint)
As we’ve just seen, Jesus and the Apostles quoted non-canon books all the time. They even referenced Pagan books in the New Testament. Just because Jesus and the Apostles (may have) used the Septuagint doesn’t mean it’s inspired.
What about the Apostles? Didn’t they use the Septuagint?
They almost certainly did.
The original Apostles were not linguists by trade. Their primary concern seemed to be spreading the Gospel. Since most of the world was Greek at that time, they needed a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for the new Christians. It would defy all logic and reason to think they would’ve made their own translation instead of using the one at hand: the Septuagint.
However, why does that mean they considered the Deuterocanon scripture?
Why?
The same argument from above applies here.
The Deuterocanon were considered good books, just not scripture. It would be like recommending a new convert read your favorite Christian book. The book might be great, you just wouldn’t consider it scripture. It’s not hard to imagine the Apostles doing the same thing. The alternative would have been to pay scribes to write new copies. At that time, that was both VERY costly and time-consuming. Besides, the Deuterocanon were considered good books and worthy of reading… just not scripture.
Again, it’s VERY dangerous to assume that a document is inerrant just because Jesus and the Apostles used it.
Jesus and the Apostles referenced non-canon books all the time (132 times) to make a point. Should we accept all those non-canon books those as scripture too?
“The Canon was officially closed by 382 AD, and it included the Deuterocanon.“
Catholics will often say that the canon of Scripture was decided early. They typically mention the three or four early Catholic councils that officially adopted the Deuterocanon. The three most commonly cited councils are:
- Council of Rome in 382
- Council of Hippo in 393
- Council of Carthage in 397
These three councils did indeed list the canon of the Bible. However, none of these councils are on the official list of Catholic Ecumenical councils. Please double check me on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article on Ecumenical councils. (It has a Nihil Obstat by a Doctor of Sacred Theology, and an Imprimatur by an Archbishop from 1907)
The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, but “merely” regional councils. Their decisions were only binding within their sphere of influence; they weren’t binding on the whole Catholic church. This should make sense because three different councils voted for the same canon within fifteen years. There would be no need for this if one of them was binding for the whole church.
Because they were regional councils and NOT ecumenical councils, the Catholic teaching of “infallible in matters of faith and morals” does NOT apply to them.
This fact is easily confirmed.
Those three councils did not “infallibly” define the canon of scripture for the whole Church. Further, (as we will soon see) there was some disagreement among the early church fathers about which books belonged in the Old Testament. (Fortunately, there has never been any disagreement about the New Testament.)
The first time the books of the Old Testament were formally defined by the Catholic Church in an ecumenical Council was at the Council of Florence in the mid 15th century. The list did include the Deuterocanon. You can read the full text of the Council of Florence here, but I’ve copy/pasted the relevant portion below.
It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), Esdras, (Ezra) Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.
(Parenthetical statements and emphasis added.)
This exact same list was restated during the Council of Trent in the mid 16th century.
Again, the Deuterocanon weren’t officially declared scripture by the Catholic Church until the mid 15th century.
Now, that doesn’t mean they weren’t considered scripture. It it possible (and I think likely) the Deuterocanon was considered scripture by the majority of the Catholic Church earlier. However, there was no “infallible” declaration of their being Scripture until the mid 15th century.
(Though again, this alone doesn’t mean they aren’t scripture.)
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the Deuterocanon
Yes they do, but they also contain other significant non-canon books too. In fact, a majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are non-biblical texts. Further, they do not contain any part of the book of Esther, which everyone agrees is canon.
Evidence the Deuterocanon Should Not be in the Bible
Here is the evidence from the other side. Catholics, I recommend you stop reading here.
The Septuagint was Created in Direct Violation of the Command of God
Again, the reason the Catholics include the Deuterocanonical books is because they are included in the Septuagint. However, the story of the Septuagint’s creation involves violating the direct command of God Himself.
Let me explain.
Another name for the Septuagint is the “Alexandrian Canon”. That’s because it was translated in Alexandria Egypt. All of the Catholic and Protestant sources agree that the Septuagint (or Alexandrian Canon) was written/translated in Alexandria. Everyone believes it was written in Alexandria and no one disputes this point.
It’s universally agreed upon.
(it’s rare that everyone agrees, but they do on this point)
However, the problem with the “Alexandrian Canon” (Septuagint) is that it was created in Alexandria, which is in Egypt. God commanded Israel never to return to Egypt.
Deuteronomy 17:15-16 (RSV-Catholic Edition)
14 “When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me’;
15 you may indeed set as king over you him whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
16 Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’
And again.
Jeremiah 42:13-19 (RSV-Catholic Edition)
13 But if you say, ‘We will not remain in this land,’ disobeying the voice of the Lord your God
14 and saying, ‘No, we will go to the land of Egypt, where we shall not see war, or hear the sound of the trumpet, or be hungry for bread, and we will dwell there,’
15 then hear the word of the Lord, O remnant of Judah. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: If you set your faces to enter Egypt and go to live there,
16 then the sword which you fear shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt; and the famine of which you are afraid shall follow hard after you to Egypt; and there you shall die.
17 All the men who set their faces to go to Egypt to live there shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence; they shall have no remnant or survivor from the evil which I will bring upon them.
18 “For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: As my anger and my wrath were poured out on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so my wrath will be poured out on you when you go to Egypt. You shall become an execration, a horror, a curse, and a taunt. You shall see this place no more.
19 The Lord has said to you, O remnant of Judah, ‘Do not go to Egypt.’ Know for a certainty that I have warned you this day
(Emphasis mine, also note that Mary and Joseph fled with Jesus to Egypt on God’s command. God Himself could rescind/change his command, but nowhere in the scripture does he rescind this command for Israel.)
God specifically commanded Israel to stay out of Egypt, but Alexandria is IN Egypt.
If Jews translated the Septuagint in Egypt (which everyone agrees on), then they were directly disobeying the command of God by being in Egypt in the first place.
Would God/Jesus bless such disobedience? Would Jesus have used a document that was created by men who were in the middle of disobeying the explicit commands of The Father?
Consider how zealous the Pharisees were on even the tiniest portions of the Law. Would the Pharisees have let the Septuagint be read in a synagogue since it was create by disobeying the explicit command of God?
If there were two different Old Testament canons like the Catholic sources say, and one of them was created directly contrary to the commands of God, then there’s only one canon left…
Jesus Own Words Confirm his use of Hebrew
Matthew 5:18 (KJV, because most other translations butcher this verse attempting to indicate what Jesus was saying)
18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”
The words “Jot” and “tittle” are archaic, but it’s the meaning in the Greek that’s important. The word translated “Jot” is the Greek word “ἰῶτα” (ióta) can refer to two things:
2503 iṓta (“jot” in the KJV) – “yōd, the smallest Hebrew (Aramaic) letter” (Souter). By analogy, the Hebrew letter yōd refers to the Greek letter, iōta (the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet).
The word translated “Tittle” is the Greek word “κεραία” (keraia) and the Strong definition is:
κεραία (WH κέρεα (see their Appendix, p. 151)), κεραιας, ἡ (κέρας), a little horn; extremity, apex, point; used by the Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points. In Matthew 5:18 ((where see Wetstein; cf. also Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, 1:537f)); Luke 16:17 of the little lines, or projections, by which the Hebrew letters in other respects similar differ from each other, as cheth ח and he ה, daleth ד and resh ר, beth ב and kaph כ (A. V. tittle); the meaning is, ‘not even the minutest part of the law shall perish.’ ((Aeschylus, Thucydides, others.))
Got Questions has an excellent (and very short) explanation of what “jot and Tittle” mean (opens in a new tab) in this passage. It’s well worth reading and won’t take long so I highly suggest you read it. Regardless, the point is the Jesus here is referring to Hebrew marks, not Greek
Now, “iota” could refer to the Greek language, but Keraia certainly does not. It refers to Hebrew diacritic marks. Again, I would read the Got Questions article for the details.
How Highly the Jews/Rabbis Regard the (Hebrew) Scriptures
Christians view the scripture highly, but compared the the 1st century Jews we treat it like a newspaper. Further, if you understand how highly the Jewish people revered the scriptures, you’d see that them using a Greek translation is HIGHLY unlikely.
This article (link opens in a new tab) is an excellent and very quick read that will give you a great understanding of just how highly the Jews regarded scripture. Please go read it.
I’m serious, I’ll still be here when you get back.
I’ll wait.
…
…
…
You’ve read it it? Good, let’s continue.
They wouldn’t put that much work into copying the scriptures then not use them. The Jews – especially the Pharisees – took this care because the scriptures mattered. Why would they use a Greek translation when they were so careful to preserve the original language?
History, Specifically the Jewish Educational System of the Day
Okay, a little context first. When Israel was carried off into Babylonian captivity, they stood a real chance of losing their religious and cultural identity. Therefore, they created a system of learning to train their kids and “stuff them with Torah like an ox.”
The Jews in Jesus’ day had three levels of education, which was most likely instituted by Ezra after the exile in order to teach the people the Scriptures again. The first level was called ‘Bet Sefer’. At the ages of six through twelve, the Jewish boys and girls would begin their education in the synagogue school, learning how to read and write. The textbook was the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and the goal was to memorize the sacred text. The Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 21a:6 says, “Before the age of six do not accept pupils; from that age you can accept them, and stuff them with Torah like an ox.” Incredible, isn’t it! Can you imagine having memorized the Torah by the age of twelve?! This level is concluded with a Bar Mitzvah for the boy, to welcome him into the community as a full member. This was also the age from which they were allowed to read the Torah out loud in the synagogue during services.
The next level was the ‘Bet Midrash’. This was only for the best of the best. I would assume for those who indeed memorized the Torah. This level was from age thirteen to fifteen, where they continued studying and memorizing the entire Tanach (in other words, the complete Old Testament). Very few were selected for this pursuit.
The final level was the ‘Bet Talmud’, which was the longest in duration as it went from the age of 15 to 30. To participate, he must be invited by a Rabbi and, if selected, he would begin a process of grooming that would lead to the potential of becoming a Rabbi at age 30. Those who were chosen were referred to as Talmidim. They would literally follow in the dust of their rabbi – desiring to emulate him in all of his mannerisms. They would eat the same food in exactly the same way as their rabbi. They would go to sleep and awake the same way as their rabbi and, more importantly, they would learn to study Torah and understand God the exact same way as their rabbi.
Source (emphasis added)
This system started over 400 years before Christ, when the Greek language was far from a world standard. We know from the Mishnah (the written record of oral tradition at Jesus’ time and afterward) among other places that Jewish children were schooled this way.
Further, we know they were schooled in Hebrew.
This is a historical fact.
We are less sure how Jews in Alexandria were schooled, but we do know how Jews in Israel during Jesus day were schooled. Starting at age six, they were taught to read and write Hebrew so they could study the Torah (The first five books of the Old Testament).
Of course they would also be able to speak Greek because it was the trade language of the world in Jesus’ day. Much like English today, Greek was the “trade language” of the ancient world. A good analogy might be made with Spanish in America. Many people who live in America came from Mexico and thus speak Spanish as a first language. However, once here they typically need English to speak to Americans, even though they use still use Spanish among themselves.
Likewise, the Jews needed to know Greek to get along in the world of Business. However, – just like the Spanish speaking immigrants to America – they would likely use their native tongue when speaking among themselves. This goes double because of the high regard in which they held the scriptures.
Jewish children where schooled in Hebrew and studied the Hebrew scriptures. Again, this is well documented historical fact.
Why would Jesus use the Septuagint (Greek) when his audience had already memorized large portions of the Hebrew scriptures?
It just makes no sense. It defies all common sense, logic and reason. A little historical context adds a LOT of clarity (much like with the my article on Revelation)
The Deuterocanon Themselves Make it Impossible for Them to be Inspired
2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is “God-Breathed“. In order to be scripture, it must be inspired by God. Otherwise, it’s just a human doing their best. However, Maccabees makes it clear there were no prophets.
1 Maccabees 9:27 Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.
(See also 1 Maccabees 4:46, and 1 Maccabees 14:41)
Nearly all of the Deuterocanonical books were written during the “400 silent years”. Between the writing of Malachi in about 430 BC and the appearance of the John the Baptist, there were no prophets in Israel. None. Not a single one. Maccabees testifies to this fact, and it’s an accepted part of Bible history.
How can a book be inspired by God if He didn’t do ANY inspiring during the time it was written?
In my opinion, this fact alone disqualifies at least 1 Maccabees from being inspired. Since we can reliably date nearly all of the deuterocanonical books to the 400 silent years, they are also disqualified from being “God breathed” because God didn’t do any “breathing” (inspiration) during that period.
The Catholic Church accidentally recognized this in the Council of Florence. As we’ve already seen, the Council of Florence was the first time the Canon of Scripture was officially listed in an ecumenical council. Preceding the list of books is this statement:
It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit.
How can a book be inspired by God, when the book itself claims that the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire anyone during the time it was written?
That would make it impossible for at least 1 Maccabees to be “God Breathed” as 2 Timothy 3:16 says.
In Several Places, the Deuterocanon Contradicts Scripture
What atones for sins?
Sirach 3:3 (RSV-CE)
3 Whoever honors his father atones for sins
And again.
Sirach 3:30 (RSV-CE)
30 Water extinguishes a blazing fire: so almsgiving atones for sin.
The book Tobit says the same thing. It’s worth noting that according to verse 6, it’s an angel talking.
Tobit 12:8-9 (RSV-CE)
8 Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold.
9 For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity and of righteousness will have fullness of life;
However, Hebrews says:
Hebrews 9:22 (RSV-CE)
22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Who brought sin into the world?
Sirach 25:24 (RSV-CE)
24 From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die.
Sirach teaches quite plainly that sin entered the world through a woman (Eve). Eve was indeed the first to sin, but this verse goes farther to say that because of Eve’s sin we all die because we “caught” sin through her. However, the New Testament teaches the exact opposite.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive
The Jews Never Accepted The Deuterocanon as Scripture
Some background first.
The Jews historically divided the Old Testament differently than Christians/Catholics do. For instance, they don’t have a “1 Kings” and a “2 Kings”, they just have “Kings”. Modern Jews divide the Old Testament this way:
- Torah or “the Teachings/Law” – 5 books
- (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy)
- Nevi’im or “the Prophets” – 8 books
- The Early Prophets (Nevi’im Rishonim): Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings
- The Later Prophets (Nevi’im Aharonim): Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and “The Twelve” (all of the Minor Prophets were considered one book)
- Ketuvim or “the Writings” – 11 Books
- The poetic books (Sifrei Emet): Psalms, Proverbs, Job
- The Five Scrolls (Hamesh Megillot): Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther
- Other Books: Daniel, Chronicles and Ezra/Nehemiah (they were considered one book)
Those 24 books are equivalent to the 39 books in the Protestant Old Testament.
There is another division which existed in Jesus day and for many centuries afterward. The only difference was that Ruth was considered part of Judges and Lamentations was considered part of Jeremiah for a total of 22 books. This 22 book canon (identical to the Protestant Old Testament) was the Old Testament canon used by many of the early church fathers.
The 1st Century Jewish historian Josephus touches on which books belong in the Bible according to the Jews.
Josephus in Against Apion, Book 1, Paragraph 8
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;
…It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.
We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured to add, or to remove, or to alter anything, and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as decrees of God.
Therefore, the deuterocanonical books which are included in the Catholic Old Testament aren’t part of the Old Testament according to the Jews of Jesus’ day.
In another place Josephus (who was a Jew) says:
From Artaxerxes to our times a complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.
It’s important to note that Josephus says the “books that are justly believed in” only extended to the end of Artaxerxes reign. He also specifically states that “From Artaxerxes to our times” nothing had been written that was considered equal to the 22 books. Further, the stated reason is because there were no prophets (a fact which Macabbees states quite plainly in several places.)
God prophesied the “failure of the exact succession of the prophets” in Amos.
Amos 8:11-12
11 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, “When I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD.
12“People will stagger from sea to sea And from the north even to the east; They will go to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, But they will not find it.
God did indeed stop speaking for several hundred years after the death of the last prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi) Artaxerxes died in 424 BC. Malachi was the last book of the Protestant and Jewish Old Testament written. It was likely written around 430 BC according to the Bible timeline on BibleHub.com. (About eight years before Artaxerxes died.)
Most of the deuterocanonical books – including Maccabees – where written between Artaxerxes and Christ. Josephus makes the same argument I made earlier in the article. The Jews didn’t consider anything written after Malachi inspired because there were no prophets at that time. Therefore the Jews didn’t consider them part of the accepted canon of the time.
Further, Josephus makes it clear that no one added to the 22 books the Jews considered canon. (identical to the Protestant Old Testament.)
We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured to add, or to remove, or to alter anything, and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as decrees of God.
At least one very prominent Jewish Rabbi named Akiva (50 – 135 AD) said that the Deuterocanon “defiled the hands”. While some Jews might have accepted the Deuterocanon (notably the Jews in Egypt/Alexandria who had completely succumbed to the surrounding Greek culture) There is no evidence that majority of Jews did. Further, the testimony of Rabbi Akiva and Josephus seems to indicate that the 22 book canon (identical to the Protestant Old Testament) was the accepted canon in Jesus time.
Why is this important?
Because of Romans.
Romans 3:1-2
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God
Romans plainly states that the Jews were (past tense) the keepers of the “oracles of God”. AKA, the Scriptures. That changed with the New covenant, allowing more to be added. But up until Jesus died, the Jews were the ones God entrusted with His Scriptures.
That lends a LOT of weight to their opinion of the deuterocanonical books.
Further – as we’ve already seen – the Jews never considered the deuterocanonical books scripture.
How did the Jews arrive at their Canon?
I’m adding this section in September of 2020 I’ve just discovered new information. It turns out God Himself made the Canon of the Old Testament clear. The canon of the Hebrew “Bible” (called a “tanach”) was decided before the prophetic line ceased. This canon was decided by a “great council” called the “Anshei Knesset HaGedolah”.
“Anshei Knesset HaGedolah” – Men of the Great Assembly; founded by Ezra in approximately 520 B.C.E., this institution of Torah Sages led the Jewish People at the beginning of the Second Temple Era (ca. 520 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.). It included Mordechai and the last of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Among the accomplishments of the “Anshei Knesset HaGedolah” were finalizing the contents of the “Tanach,” the 24-Book Hebrew Bible, instituting the “Shemoneh Esray” Prayer (recited at least three times daily, and ultimately to serve as a substitute for the Temple Sacrifices), and the enacting of many Laws to protect and bolster the observance of the Torah Commands.
The “Ezra” mentioned in the article is the same Ezra who wrote a book of the Bible. Likewise, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi were not only recognized prophets, but they also wrote the books of the Bible which bear their names.
These are heavyweight Biblical names and recognized prophets.
The authors of four Biblical books – three of which were prophets – attended the council that decided once and for all the Hebrew “Bible” (Tanach). God Himself weighed in through His prophets. After these prophets died, God stopped speaking as Amos predicted. God made it clear which books were to be included, then He stopped inspiring thing. (as Maccabees makes quite clear.)
If all scripture is “God-breathed” as 2 Timothy 3:16 says, then the deuterocanonical books couldn’t be inspired by God because God stopped inspiring until the New Testament (starting with John the Baptizer).
Many prominent Early Church Fathers (and at least one Pope) didn’t accept them
I want to be 100% clear, I am NOT saying the Church rejected the Deuterocanonical books in the early centuries. I am merely saying the canon of the Old Testament was very much a matter of debate. Looking at the quotes below from so many respected early church fathers should at least secure that fact.
(Saint) Melito of Sardis – who died in 180 AD – said the following in a letter he wrote to Onesimus
Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting:–
As you have often, prompted by your regard for the word of God, expressed a wish to have some extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our faith in general, and have desired, moreover, to obtain an accurate account of the Ancient Books, as regards their number and their arrangement,…
…Their names are as follows: The five books of Moses–Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom. Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book. Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras (Ezra/Nehemiah), from these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.
Origen also said there were 22 books in the old Testament.
One must not be ignorant, that there are twenty-two books of the covenant, as the Hebrews recon them; which is the number of letters in their alphabet.
Hilary of Poitiers (360 A.D.),
“The Law of the Old Testament is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” (Tractate on Psalms, prologue 15)
Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (also called Athanasius the great, died 373 AD) also said there were 22 books in the Old Testament Canon in his 39th Festal Letter. (this list includes Baruch, but none of the other deuterocanonical books)
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386 AD) stressed (in Catechetical Lecture 4.35) that ONLY the 22 books of the Old Testament should be read, and that Christians should “have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings”. (So there is precedent for Protestants called them the Apocrypha.)
Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes.
Interesting that Saint Cyril said the Apostles and “bishops of old time” didn’t accept the deuterocanonical books. He also says that only the 22 books were “read openly in the Church”, which would indicate the deuterocanonical books weren’t.
Jerome said there are only 22 books in the Old Testament, though he allows for the modern Jewish 24 book division too. The following is a quote from a letter that Jerome wrote to Paula and Eustochium in 394 AD. (source)
And so twenty-two books make up the old law; that is, five of Moses, eight of prophets, nine of hagiographa. Though some ascribe Ruth and Cinoth [Lamentations] to the hagiographa, and count these books in their computed number; thus there would be twenty-four books of ancient law.
So, there you go. Jerome says the Old Testament is identical to the Protestant Old Testament. Jerome also said:
“As then the church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the church.”
(Jerome, Preface to the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs)
Jerome uses almost the exact same wording again in Op Hieron.
“As therefore, the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobias and of the Maccbbees, but does not receive them in the canonical scriptures, so also she may read these writings two writings for the edification of the people, not to establish the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines.”
I want to point out that Jerome was the man entrusted with translating the original Latin Vulgate… And he didn’t believe the deuterocanonical books were scripture.
There is some evidence that Jerome changed his mind later in life. However, the fact that he HAD to change his mind means that the canon of scripture certainly wasn’t fixed in the minds of the church in Jerome’s time.
Rufinus of Aquileia (died 410 AD) in his Commentary on the Apostle’s Creed, lists the books of the Old Testament. His list in #37 is identical to the Protestant Old Testament.
Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles (song of songs). These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
And #38 says:
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not “Canonical” but “Ecclesiastical:” that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees.
Pope Gregory the Great also state that at least 1 Maccabees was not canonical. in “The Moral Teaching” he writes:
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed.
Gregaroy’s allusion is to 1 Maccabees 6:46
1 Maccabees 6:46 (RSV-CE)
46 He got under the elephant, stabbed it from beneath, and killed it; but it fell to the ground upon him and there he died.
I would also like to point out this this quote is from a POPE from the 7th Century. That certainly doesn’t make it infallible, but it does certainly cast doubt as to what the accepted canon of the day was.
There are many more citations I could list, but someone else already did the work for me. I borrowed the following list from Here.
-
Synopsis of Sacred Scripture (c. 500 A.D.), “The canonical books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, equal in number to the Hebrew letters; for they have so many original letters.”
-
Isidore of Seville (600 A.D.) said the Old Testament was settled by Ezra the priest into twenty-two books “that the books in the Law might correspond in number with the letters.” (Liber de Officiis)
-
Leontius (610 A.D.), “Of the Old Testament there are twenty-two books.” (De Sectis)
-
John of Damascus (730 A.D.): “Observe further that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet.” (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4.17)
-
Nicephorus (9th century A.D.), “There are two and twenty books of the Old Testament.” (Stoichiometry)
-
Jesudad, Bishop of Hadad, Syria (852 A.D.) recognized a canon of twenty-two books. (John E. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, vol.1, p.80)
-
Hrabanus (9th century A.D.) said the Old Testament was formed by Ezra into twenty-two books “that there might be as many books in the Law as there are letters.” (Whitaker, Disputation)
-
Peter of Cluny (Better know as Peter the Venerable and also know as Blessed Peter of Montboissier) (1150 A.D.): Twenty-two books. (Edward Reuss, Canon of the Holy Scriptures, p.257)
-
Hugh of St. Victor (12th Century): “As there are twenty-two alphabetic letters, by means of which we write in Hebrew, and speak what we have to say, so twenty-two books are reckoned, by means of which … the yet tender infancy of our man is instructed, while it yet hath need of milk.” (Didascalicae Eruditionis, 4.80)
So, at least until the 12th century, there wasn’t complete agreement as to which books belonged in the Old Testament. That’s not surprising because the first time the Old Testament canon was officially recorded was the Council of Florence in 15th century.
Conclusion
There have been many great books written by Christians on our Faith. I think the Deuterocanonical books could be counted among them, I just don’t think they are scripture.
Honestly, the strongest evidence of this comes from Maccabees. Maccabees is very clear that there were no prophets in those days. How can a book be inspired by God when the book itself claims that the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire anyone during the time it was written?
The Jews (who were the “entrusted with the oracles of God”) didn’t accept them as scripture for the same reason. Beyond that, the Septuagint was created in direct violation of the command of God. Further, many of the early church fathers didn’t accept them (including a Pope in the 7th century)
Based on the evidence, I don’t consider them to be inspired by God. Good books, possibly. Inerrant and part of the divinely inspired Scriptures, no.
(Note: You may also be interested in this article on this website: Is the Catholic Church Infallible? No, and Here’s Proof)
){kind=link}
Good job. I learned something today!
Hey,
There are many lies in this article, some of them in their fuller context actually prove that the deuterocanonical books are scripture. It seems that the article writer made the embarrassing mistake of saying R. Akiva said that the deuteros “defiled the hands”, where he actually said they didn’t.
Back then, those works that “defiled the hands” were actually the Old Testament scriptures. Thus R. Akiva said that the Christian writings along with the deuterocanonicals (for the reason that the Christians held to them and that Wisdom 2:12-21 contains a direct prophecy about Christ, the most explicit in the Old Testament) didn’t defile.
If you’d like to arrange a debate on the issue Abe, I’d be happy to refute these arguments, as well as show positive proof for the deuterocanonicals necessarily being scripture.
While I’m always willing to admit I’ve made a mistake, I can assure you there are no lies in the sense of “I know the Truth but am saying something false on purpose.” I sent you an email where I’d be happy to continue discussing it.
There are 73 books of the Bible!
Glad to realize a radical truth it helps me to gain more confindence which I believeth……God blesses whoever put effort for this vast details.
Thank you for the workman’s work you do here with these articles.. lot of meat to chew on.
With regard to the birth of a daughter being a loss, it’s not my impression that he is speaking about the birth of a daughter in a general sense, but rather an undisciplined daughter in the same sense as the son in the first part of the verse. Because, in the next verse he goes on to say “A sensible daughter obtains her husband, but one who acts shamefully brings grief to her father.”.
Since she “obtains her husband”, I guess her father doesn’t have to; the suitors just show up, with bride-price in hand.
So, an undisciplined son is a disgrace, but he can go off and be gone from his father at no cost to him. But a shameful daughter might not be able to obtain a high bride-price, and maybe not even obtain a husband at all; unless her father pays a man to take her, and hence the birth of an (eventually) undisciplined/shameful daughter is a loss.
Thanks for the kind words 🙂
Also, you make an interesting point. I’m not sure I agree, but I can see where you’re coming from. It looks to me like it’s saying the birth of a daughter is equivalent to having an undisciplined son, still denigrating the daughter’s birth. However, I concede there’s room for interpretation here so I edited the article to remove that bit.
@Ya’akov. Sir. I learned from your remarks Berean Patriot. I would love to correspond with you offline re: fathering.
You seem to recognize that the new covenant takes precedent now over the old but you seem to ignore this regarding the Septuagint. With the arrival of the Christ came sweeping changes to this. This seems to happen a lot especially dealing with protestants and their embrace of sola scriptura. Which if you go to acts 15 with regard to the Jerusalem council discussing circumcision St. Peter makes a decision on this that negates a huge part of the old covenant. This negates sola scriptura in the sense that this decision was made before the writing and spread of the new testament showing that the Church can make these sorts of HUGE decisions. You’re obviously an intelligent guy and I’d love to speak with you about this more. Peace be with you.
I didn’t mention Sola Scriptura in the article. The burden of proof is on the Catholic Church to show that it is “infallible in matters of faith and morals”. I have seen no proof of this yet, otherwise I would be Catholic. Do please send me an email from the contact page and we can discuss it further.
Seems about too complicated even for a strong born again believer to understand. Wish you could summarize and say that the Catholics or csi bible addition were added later. But translation done in 286bc means only old testament chapters were added.
Very interesting and very well put together!
I do have a question though: In this article, you use the terms “dueterocanonical” and “Septuagint” pretty interchangebly, but earlier on, you referred to the specific 7 books as the “dueterocanon/apocrypha”; forgive me if the answer if repetetive as it is my first time even hearing of these terms, but does that mean that the apocrypha/dueterocanons actually refer to all the apocryphal books (including the ones that were definitely rejected from the Catholic church)?
If so, did the Catholic church, in essence, pick & choose the 7 books of the dueterocanon to keep in the Bible?
Or another way of asking the question:
Why does the Protestant church/es argue against or not put the same 7 books in Bible?
Thanks again for putting this information together!
The dueterocanon/apocrypha means something different depending on who you talk to, which is probably why it’s confusing. Generally, the Catholics only mean the books they included which protestants don’t. To others, it means all the “extra” books. I’m not sure why the Catholic Church accepts those specific seven and not the others.
If Jews weren’t to set foot ever again in Egypt then the Lord would not have appeared to Joseph in a dream directing him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt to prevent Herod from killing Jesus. This is why Sola Scriptura is short-changing the Christians who adhere to it. Christ founded a CHURCH, not a BOOK and he entrusted the apostles and those following in the line of succession to interpret and safeguard the Deposit of Faith: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
What God Himself forbade (returning to Egypt), God Himself can later permit/decree.
As for “Holy Tradition”, I’m nearly finished writing an article which proves the Catholic Church’s teachings aren’t infallible because they’ve changed (specifically, the requirements for salvation). Look for that in the not-too-distant future. I’ll edit this comment and add a link to the article after I publish it.
EDIT: You can read it here: Is the Catholic Church Infallible? No, and Here’s Proof
At the outset you pose that some Church Fathers and Catholic Saints call the 7 books in question apocryphal but do not list those names or where it is recorded that they called them apocryphal. Why did you omit this? I for one would like to review the facts in there original context to verify that claim.
Cyril of Jerusalem, and I quoted him saying as such nearer the end of the article. I believe Jerome also. You can also read the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Apocrypha for more information in the origins of the word and use by other significant Catholic figures.
Did you know that the same Jeremiah who was told about not going back to Egypt, died in Egypt?
Surely this means that there is some alternative interpretation.
When we read through the Patristics on the Egypt, it’s clearly not referring to “Egypt” as a country. These fathers refer to the “Egypt Of The Passions”. Within the ancient world, the Egyptians were viewed as the most craven pagans, as they worshipped animals. These animals are clearly further down the hierarchy than man, whereas Babylonians and Greeks worshipped Demons, who possess the same rational intellect as Angels.
Although the likes of Og were conceived in the midst of overt demon worship, the manner of life was even more depraved than those peoples. Remember, there is a reason why the Israelites needed 40 years in the desert, and were continually demanding meat of Moses. Remember that the time in Egypt reduced the Israelites from Joseph to this.
Consider this in contrast to the Book Of Daniel, wherein many Israelites were able to endure Babylonian oppression in a far stronger manner.
Thus, we are told to never return to Egypt, in that we are never to return to Idolatry and to the things of the passions.
Likewise, both Hebrews and Sirach are correct at the same time. Did not Eve originate in Man? Does that not mean, therefore, that sin originates from Eve’s action, and her origin being in Adam?
As a final brief comment, I would suggest you look over your Patristic sources a little more keenly. St Jerome compiled the document (with Pope St Damasus I) that set the Deuterocanon up.
Found here: http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
He likewise states thus, in his Contra Rufinum (Against Rufinus): “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us”
I would warn you, as a fellow Christian, to take this to heart.
We don’t know where Jeremiah died, though it’s true that there’s a Jewish tradition that he died in Egypt. However, if you’re going to listen to Jewish tradition, maybe start with which books of the Bible are canon… 😉
There are places in the Bible that clearly refer to Egypt in a metaphorical/symbolic sense, and never good. However, in the two passages I quoted this clearly isn’t the case. In both places, the physical land of Egypt is clearly the subject.
Eve did sin first so the “From a woman sin had its beginning” phrase is correct. It’s the “because of her we all die” phrase that’s patently wrong. Sin is passed through the male line (which is why Mary didn’t need to be sinless to birth a sinless savior), as Romans and 1 Corinthians makes clear. Further, if you read the story again you’ll see that Eve’s eyes weren’t opened until Adam ate. Interesting no?
The link points to the “Decretum Gelasianum”, which is so named because it’s thought to be the work of Pope Gelasius I, not Jerome. I assume you meant to link to the essentially idential “Damasine List” from the Council of Rome, which I mentioned as being a regional council, and not an ecumenical council. Now, if you have proof/evidence that Jerome wrote this, please post it because I haven’t seen any yet.
I did mention there was some evidence that Jerome changed his mind. However, if you read the 2nd and 3rd quotes, you’ll see Jerome clearly said the Church didn’t consider them scripture.
So much pride and anger in this article! Shouldn’t all baptised Christians and members of the Body of Christ try to get along rather than ‘prove I’m right and you’re wrong’? Where’s the Love? Let’s have a respectful interest in our differences, but a common love for Jesus Christ.
All this discussion clearly shows that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Few sentences, words and phrases may be. But definitely written by human beings.
Unlike the Holy Quran which is from cover to cover the words of God, revealed through Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
Here’s but one quick article I found demonstrating profound and irreconcilable historical errors in the Quran. It also recounts some history of the text, and about the various versions that existed.
https://www.gotquestions.org/errors-Quran.html
Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of “adding” Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn’t already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 — and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have “added” them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren’t around to hear the Council of Jamnia’s decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those “extra” 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.
Let’s say everything in your comment is 100% accurate. (and much of it is) None of that proves the deuterocanon belongs in the Bible. Does doing something for centuries make it right?
Jamnia was a hypothetical council for which there’s little to no historical evidence. It was first proposed – as in he said “what if there was a council of Jamnia?” – to have happened by Heinrich Graetz in 1871. Actual Jewish sources from Jesus’ day are crystal clear that the Jewish “bible” (the Tanakh) is identical to the Protestant Old Testament. And since they were “entrusted with the oracles of God…”
According to the Early Church Fathers and Josephus, the Sadducees only accepted the Books of Moses as Scripture. Whereas the Pharisees accepted the books of the Law and the Prophets.(The Essenes differed from both) That is why the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, whilst the Pharisees did. This indicates that the Jewish Canon was in no way settled in the Judaism of Jesus’s time. In arguing with the Sadducees about the resurrection, Jesus did not admonish them for not accepting the Books of the Prophets, where the resurrection was clearly referenced, (eg Daniel 12:1-2 & Isaiah 26:19). Jesus simply proved the resurrection to them (see Matthew 22:31-32) from the book of Exodus.
So this argument as to WHY the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals should NOT be included in the Bible is really pointless. They were included in our Bibles for more than 1500 years. Was the Church wrong for more than 1500 years? A better question is WHY and at what point some Protestants felt the need to exclude them? And by whose authority? Such a major decision should have required a full Ecumenical Council of the Bishops.
These books were included in all the Bibles of the Reformers, including the KJV and the Geneva Bible of 1560, which the Pilgrims took with them to the New World.
Interestingly enough the Geneva Bible had a plethora of notes and cross references in the margins to explain scripture. Many of the cross references in the NT were linked to these so called “disputed books”.
What this tells us is that the understanding of “Sola Scriptura” amongst these early Protestants was somewhat different how their more modern counterparts understand the term today. They understood that the Scriptures themselves were not the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice, otherwise they would not have felt the need to provide notes to help with interpretation. Any Protestant denomination who does not understand that they are in fact relying on their own “tradition” to interpret scripture, according to their own particular doctrine, is simply lying to themselves. There is therefore really no such thing as “Sola Scriptura” since we all rely on some form of “tradition”. The Bible itself is quite clear that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church (1Timothy 3:15), and only through the lens of the Church and it’s Sacred Tradition can Scripture be interpreted properly. Which Church you might ask? There is only one Church established by Christ and one Sacred Tradition.
I AM Professor Ricardo Booysen ( Dr.) Rev
i request a copy of that bible with 73 bboks
Should it be payable i humbly request that you forward me your invoice and if postal cost to
18 Vitarastreet
Balfour Heights
Missionvale
Port Elizabeth
6059
Look for any Bible Translation with “CE” (for “Catholic Edition”) after the title. One of the better translations that’s available with the Dueterocanon is the RSV. So if you would like a copy, I would look for an “RSV-CE”.
Gosh, maybe it is best to follow the 10 Commandments and we will all make God happy . No disagreement.. no saddening God.
Just a thought by a humble follower of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit 💜
Well done! Great read!
Interesting read, most definitely! But like most of the comments here, I would look towards why those books were excluded by the Protestants with the proper evidences, hundreds of years later instead of why they’re still around as they it were originally.
The authority involving the Protestants are not the authority of the whole religion and just because you think the books are not of value, doesn’t mean it applies to everyone else.
It is very eaasy to take one passage of scripture, or even several and ‘prove’ something. But if you do noot acknowledge the contrary texts, that is a little disingenuous. So on Egypt we also have this text form Isaiah (ch 19), which would seem to imply a different story about Egypt: ‘In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD Almighty. One of them will be called the City of Destruction. [2]
19
In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border.
20
It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them.
21
So the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the LORD. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings; they will make vows to the LORD and keep them.
22
The LORD will strike Egypt with a plague; he will strike them and heal them. They will turn to the LORD, and he will respond to their pleas and heal them.
23
In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together.
24
In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth.
25
The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.”‘
Indeed it is easy to take a section of Scripture out of context, which you have unfortunately done. If you backup and read the entire chapter, you’ll see that the Jews weren’t prophesied as moving back to Egypt; they were prophesied to come to it in judgement. Simply backing up two verses will provide enough context to disprove of your point.
Lost me when you used Wikipedia as a source
One of the comments in this article is not totally true. It is said that the Jews did not accept those 7 books. Not exactly true. The diaspora Jews DID accept those 7 books. The diaspora Jews were Converts to Christ! They wanted to spread the good news of our Savior, Jesus Christ. They had a real divine right to say just WHICH books Christians included in their Bible. Luther thought otherwise. He based his reasonings to NOT accept those books on the reasonings of the Jews at the Jewish Council of Jamnia. The Jews at Jamnia were Jews who DID NOT accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. They were NOT converts to Christ like the diaspora Jews. Yet, Luther chose to go right along with the reasonings of the Jews at Jamnia, with the Jews who DID NOT accept Jesus!! Was he guided by the Holy Spirit, guided by God, in going along with the very Jews who were NOT CONVERTS to Christ, who did not want to spread the gospel of Jesus? No. He could have chosen to go along with the diaspora Jews, with the Jews who really had a real divine right to say just WHICH books Christians included in their Bible. Some claim that their was no Jewish Council of Jamnia. Whether there was or not, Luther believed they existed, and he went right along with the Jews at Jamia who were NOT converts to Christ. To say that the Jews did NOT accept those books is not totally true. It is a half truth and is misleading.
It would be impossible for Luther to have based anything on the council of Jamnia because the idea of the Council of Jamnia was first introduced by Heinrich Graetz in 1871. Further, the “diaspora Jews” would include virtually ever single jew in the entire world after the Romans crushed Israel in the late 1st century, by definition. It simply means Jews living outside of Israel. It’s disingenuous to treat them a homogeneous group.
God Himself weighed in on the OT canon through a few OT prophets. Please re-read the section entitled “How did the Jews arrive at their Canon?”
Alexandria during the time of translation of the Septuagint was a kingdom of Greece and Alexandria itself was not established until after Alexander the Great conquered that part of Egypt which was then under Persian control for the previous 200 years. Egypt fell into decline after the exodus and eventually the Persian empire took possession of the northern lands of Egypt in 532BC and then Alexander the Great in 323BC. Alexandria was created by Alexander the Great in his name’s sake to be the capital of his empire, the Ptolemaic kingdom.
The Septuagint was not translated until the 2nd and 1st century BC in alexandria. During which time it was under control of the Greek empire of King Seleucus, and eventually taken by the roman empire in 31BC. Therefore when the bible speaks of Rome in Acts it is talking about this are or norther Egypt that used to be the Seleucid Empire. Acts 2:10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, it is speaking of this entire region of Egypt and Libya, northern Egypt no longer being considered Egypt but Rome.
“Alexander, who quickly conquered the Persian Empire died…young in 323 BC, leaving an expansive empire … without an adult heir. The empire was put under the authority of a regent in the person of Perdiccas, and the territories were divided among Alexander’s generals, who thereby became satraps, at the Partition of Babylon, all in that same year.
Alexander’s generals jostled for supremacy over parts of his empire. Ptolemy, a former general and the satrap of Egypt, was the first to challenge the new system; this led to the demise of Perdiccas. Ptolemy’s revolt led to a new subdivision of the empire with the Partition of Triparadisus in 320 BC. Seleucus, who had been “Commander-in-Chief of the Companion cavalry” (hetairoi) and appointed first or court chiliarch (which made him the senior officer in the Royal Army after the regent and commander-in-chief Perdiccas since 323 BC, though he helped to assassinate him later) received Babylonia and, from that point, continued to expand his dominions ruthlessly. Seleucus established himself in Babylon in 312 BC, the year used as the foundation date of the Seleucid Empire.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Empire#Partition_of_Alexander's_empire
During the time of Ramses and Moses Alexandria had not even been thought of. So there is argument to be made that if Jews did translate the Septuagint into Greek in Alexandria they were not in the nation of Egypt which only still existed as a sovereign in the south which would be upper Egypt during this time. The Egypt of ramses and moses was now under control of the Helenistic empire as seen here https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4b/6c/dc/4b6cdc492f87e0042d16c4b89b9084ac.jpg. And here is a timeline map you can scroll through empires. https://www.timemaps.com/history/ancient-egypt-500bc/
Therefore the scribes of the Septuagint not only likely didn’t think they were breaking a commandment of the Lord but in reality were not because they were in an entirely new kingdom ruled by a king of Macedonian decent. Any Egyptians that lived there were subjects of Seleucus at the time, and persian kings before that, and Roman Caesar after.
The verses in Isaiah, that Tamsin Geach mentioned in an earlier reply I think greatly resemble what happened when when Persia took over the region, as I indicated in my post. It literally connected Cannan Egypt and Assyria.
http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/fall-of-ancient-egypt.html
This site give a great look at how the Egyptian empire collapsed and was overtaken by the Persian empire, the fact is that they were on the verge of collapse before that point but by the time the Persian empire assumed control there were merely a province in a large empire under foreign control and it remained that way for centuries. Christianity spread into Egypt during that time and then 300 years later Alexandria was formed by a new empire and it wasn’t until after all of this that scribes wrote the Septuagint.
AMOR Y PAZ, para TODOS. Dios los ilumine por la verdad y solo el lo ara. La ignorancia del ser vivo será la única salvación, ante la verdad del SEÑOR PADRE NUESTRO. Amar a Dios sobre todas las cosas, y amar al prójimo es los mimos por ser crianza del SEÑOR PADRE.
I wish you would correct the misuse of “it’s” in place of “its.” Since we’re talking about the details of words and their meanings here, it seems important to get the small details right, or they call the big details into question.
Agreed. Unfortunately I have a rather bad case of dyslexia which accounts for most of the spelling/grammar errors on the website. It’s my thorn in the flesh. I proofread slowly out loud several times before publishing and still miss things, though I’m always working to improve.
So 22 books equals 24 books equals 39 books.
Nonsense.
fascinating article.very well researched and written. thank you for your effort.
You’re welcome. 🙂
To your repeated comment that “the Jews never considered the deuterocanonical books scripture,” I would ask, “Which ‘Jews’ do you mean, exactly”? You give testimony here from Josephus, a representative of the Pharisee sect, yet fail to take into account the widespread factions that held other books as authoritative (I do not say ‘canonical,’ because this is an anachronistic idea in the first century). The Essenes and Jews of the Diaspora included other books as authoritative, while the Sadducees and Samaritans held fewer as authoritative. Yet through the testimony of Josephus, you’ve only focused in on a particular sect, and at the exclusion of others – others which held a different ‘canon’ from the Pharisaical, Rabbinic, or medieval and modern Judaism. You cannot therefore simply say, “The Jews,” for the variation of authoritative books was equal to the variation of first century Jewish thought. In the centuries that followed, Judaism developed to hold the canon from only one of many sects – the only sect to have survived the Jewish wars – the sect to have become the dominant form of Judaism when all others no longer remained to contribute to the discussion. And so to the victor goes the canon. But this certainly cannot be reduced to something as simple as “the canon of the Jews.”
I suggest that you re-read the section under the heading “How Did The Jews Arrive At Their Canon?”. It was decided hundreds of years before the Diaspora and Essenes, and by God Himself through the last three prophets of the Old Testament. Regardless of what sects accepts what books, God Himself weighed in. In my mind, that settles the debate. Now, some sects of Jews might have later rejected what God spoke through His prophets, but that doesn’t change the fundamental authority of “Thus says the Lord” just because some people reject what he’s said.
And while the Samaritans, the Essenes, and the Sadducees had other ideas, I haven’t seen evidence that they were in any way a majority; even when combined. IIRC, even combined they would’ve been a fairly small minority. Further, I don’t remember seeing any evidence that the Diaspora Jews accepted the additional books as scripture. It’s been a while since I did the research so I might not be remembering, but I don’t remember seeing conclusive proof of that.
As a note here, the septuagint was not used by the Jewish leaders for a very simple reason. Only scribes were allowed to copy the scriptures, and the scribes were all Levites. Since the septuagint was created by members of the tweve tribes (which doesn’t include Levites), it did not have the blessings of God, Himself.
I very much enjoy your insight and I have learned so much. I know little so my thoughts may be wrong yet they trouble me. I hope they make sense.
My questions are: 1. A visit is not “living” yes? Ergo, the Septuigint translators stayed for a limited time, or visit. That is different from dwelling so I question the line of reasoning that Jewish men visited Egypt ergo the Septuigint is false. We need to look at the words. 2. You rightly mention Yehova’s bending the edict for living in Egypt with regard to Jesus. To preserve the scriptures, it makes sense that He would hold them in a dry climate that would not be razed in 70 CE. 3. Yehova knew that Greek would be the trade language. In preparation for this, a OT scriptures available to the Ethnos is a logical move in order to move forward the great work of the Apostles. 4. The apostacy of the Jews prior to 70 CE, and their demonic possession, makes the Hebrew scripture corruption likely (esp prophetic portions) as part of the the outcome after Jesus’ death, and indeed this is an argument in using them as there was not evidence of the corruption of the Septuigint canonical books, only snobbery. 5. Jesus words were most likely Aramaic yes? Therefore not Hebrew so His NT quotes are a translation. The NT writers chose to translate Jesus words into Greek so readers could compare direct passages from OT to NT. 6. Even though the Jews were holders of the OT this changed with their divorcement by Yehova and was put into the hands of the Ethnos, giving us a complete copy. 7. The differences of Masoretic vs Septuigint are troubling and 1st century Jewish corruption is suggested by early church writings (other websites) which I believe were raised based on the Jews hatred of OT prophecy that references the Messiah. Certainly their hatred of portions of the OT prophesies relating to Jesus makes their preservation of scripture suspect and this probably occured soon after Jesus death. The only way to tell this is to compare Septuigint to Masoretic, as I understand it. I may be in error on any of the above! Thank you for your posts!
Excellent article – most of it.
But make a honest prayer that He opens your heart for the truth regarding the Septuagint. The superiority of the Septuagint over the Masoretic texts had not only been proven through the study linked below, but also by other scholars such as the Associates For Biblical Research (Project Gen 5 & 11). Or look for NathanH83 on Youtube.
http://www.fitforfaith.ca/bible/#septuagint
Contact me for any questions / observations.
Thank you for that comment. I did some looking this morning based on what you suggested and found some interesting things. I’ll have to look deeper when I get the time.
The Church used the 73 Book canon from 382 AD until 1520. Jesus said that he would be with the Church until the end of the age. He said he would send the Spirit of Truth to guide it in all things. So by this logic for 1200 years the true Christian faith was either invisible to the world or non existent. Did the Spirit of Truth make a mistake when it let the Church believe the 7 documents were infallible when they were not?
I am desperate for an answer on this question. Let me just take one disagreement between Catholic and Protestant. The question is how can we trust the Bible? Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself. Protestants say “the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had the Council and determined that the canon was 73 books. Whether this was a “regional council” or not, most of the Church including Augustine used it. The council was believed to choose the infallible canon. That would be a radically important thing right? So the question is why would we trust those 73 books? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So we should trust what he says right? So from 382 AD to 1520 AD the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and around 1520 AD and they claim that the early Church got the 73 book canon wrong. I am not being rude or belligerent but I really would like someone to explain – calmly and in simple language because I am slow – Please tell me how that is not absurd to say the Church got the 73 book Canon wrong based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the church in All TRUTH.
I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Of course not. Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon?
I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? You could not say the true church was there if they could not even get the correct books in the canon. And I don’t see any other church in history declaring anything different than the 73 book canon. So the real church with the correct Bible was not on earth if the Protestant claim is true. Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not absurd that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the real truth on this issue is not there until 1520. If that is true that would make me question the Christian truth claims entirely. Just a reasoned answer to this question would really help me.
Okay, we’ll look at your “one church” idea first. Consider 1 Cor 11:19
God (writing through Paul) was explicit said that it was necessary for “factions” (or sects/dominations would be another fine translation of that Greek word) to exist. Thus, they exist. One church doesn’t necessarily mean they all march in lock-step doctrinally.
Further, if the Catholic Church is supposed to guide Christians into all truth, then they will need to stop changing the requirements for salvation over time. See my article: Is the Catholic Church Infallible? No, and Here’s Proof
Now, as to the issue of canon. The Catholic church didn’t officially declare the OT canon until the council of Florence, as I said in the article. The regional councils in the 4th century weren’t binding, as evidenced by all the quotes in the article from between 382 and the 1400s where Catholic theologians – and even a pope – said that the Deuterocanon aren’t scripture. Click here to jump to the point in the article where I list those quotes. Notice: up into the 12th century (!) there were still faithful Catholics who didn’t consider the Deuterocanon scripture.
The Church didn’t consider the Deuterocanon scripture until quite late; no more than a few hundred years between the 12th century and Trent. Further, remember that in the Old Testament, the Israelites actually lost the Torah – God’s law – so completely that no one had heard it when it was read to king Josiah. Given what happened with Josiah and the Mosaic Law, I have no trouble believing that God would let His people think non-inspired books were inspired for a time. Thankfully, we now know that God Himself decided the canon in Ezra’s day: see the article.
This post explains perfectly the ridiculous nature of the argumentation of Catholics (and even Protestants). I hope that some day we can just look to messages like these and say… “See, we really were just wasting our time.”
Maybe now, we can spend our time more wisely, maybe by picking up a new skill, like writing or practicing art, instead of wasting it arguing about things that don’t matter.
Thank you for taking the time to explain just how silly we’ve all been,
Kings to you BereanPatriot!
Well done research! Thank you!
Love reading your articles, brother. They are in depth, quite informative, yet clear and very understandable. Thank you for sharing all your research and study with us.
fyi (a little editing note) after your mention of the article on the process of copying the OT, you typed “it” twice in your humorous nudge.
YHWH bless you
Do you think the book of Enoch should be included in the Bible?
No. The Jews never accepted it as canon and neither has the church at any point.
Ok thanks, and I wanted to say I’ve learned a lot from you, but can you explain why Jude 1 vs 14 quoted Enoch if the church didn’t accept it as a canon?
There are over 100 books that are referenced in the Bible, and some are even partially quoted. That doesn’t make those other books canon or part of the Bible; why would Enoch be different? I do think I have a section addressing this in the article, though not Enoch specifically.
Ok thank you
So God took Enoch to heaven and you don’t think his writings should be in the Bible?
I’m not sure if you realize this, but writing wasn’t invented until long after Enoch was taken up to heaven.
Berean Patriot
Where did the Bible come from and in which centuries? Did the Holy Spirit start the Protestant church in the 16th century? If so what happened to the Church for the 1500 or so years since the day of Pentecost?
Watch this video for more interesting thoughts on this topic:
https://www.catholic.com/video/scott-hahn-explains-papal-infallibility
God bless you!
Very good.
Wow that was almost hilarious. Your first reason why it should t be considered scripture is because God commanded the Israelites not to return to Egypt!? You ask,
Would God/Jesus bless such disobedience? Would Jesus have used a document that was created by men who were in the middle of disobeying the explicit commands of The Father?
I don’t know? Jesus himself went to Egypt so…
Wait! Would God/Jesus bless Joseph for such disobedience! Would Jesus have used an earthly father who was in the middle of disobeying explicit commands oh His Heavenly Father??
Just utter foolishness. I see why you added the suggestion, “Catholics should stop reading here.”
Wouldn’t want people seeing your flawed arguments huh? Good call.
This is a great post. I have recently written a few posts on the OT canon myself that required a good bit of research. The claim about the Council of Rome in 382 is absolutely false (hence why no patristic source ever mentions it). While there likely was a “council” there dealing with Constantinopolitan matters from the prior year, it’s near certain the canon wasn’t even a topic of discussion. Scholars have pretty well deconstructed the important details of the infamous “Decretum Gelasium.” It was William Jurgens, a prominent Catholic author in the late 1970’s that essentially started the canon claim (at least planted the seeds for zealous apologists). Carthage and Hippo are reliable historical claims but as you pointed out, they were local. I don’t believe anyone in the east ever mentioned them and even in Rome, I’m sure many through the centuries knew nothing about them. They certainly didn’t believe they “decided the canon” for Christendom.
On a side not: reading the accounts of debates at the Council of Trent is interesting, too. They certainly don’t support the claims of modern apologists.
I’ve written about the “Council of Rome” claim here:
https://threepillarsblog.org/church-history/deciding-the-canon-of-scripture-damasus-and-the-council-of-rome-in-382/
Also, I learned that many modern scholars have come to believe the limited canon of the Sadducees is a false claim, too. In corresponding with one prominent canon scholar, I also learned that it is an area that hasn’t been studied very extensively so I took it upon myself to try to trace the history of that claim and unravel the truth, as best as I could. After finding the source of the claim (mostly Jerome embellishing Origen in a hastily compiled commentary on Matthew) and reviewing Rabbinc, NT, and all the patristic sources I could find, I’m fully convinced it’s not true. I have written this up, too:
https://threepillarsblog.org/judaism/did-the-sadducees-have-a-limited-canon/
This isn’t God-breathed?
Wisdom 2:12-20
“ Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us; he opposes our actions, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like that of others, and different are his ways.
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end. For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With violence and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”
No, it isn’t. Not according to the evidence I’ve found and presented in this article.
This was very helpful. Thanks. I just stumbled across this. I’ve never read the apocrypha before. After reading a few I’m convinced just by reading them that they’re not inspired. Interesting books though. It’d be like having the book of the deeds of the kings of Judah available to read. It would be quite interesting, but God only promised to preserve his 66 books. Thanks
Thank you for your work in providing this wonderful site! Under the heading: How Did the Jews Arrive At Their Canon? you list various people.
The first one mentioned was (Saint) Melito of Sardis – who died in 180 AD – who said the following in a letter he wrote Onesimus:
“Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting….
As you have often, prompted by your regard for the Word of God, expressed a wish to have some extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour…..
He then lists the names of the books beginning with the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy).
After Jeremiah he proceeds to say:
Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras (Ezra/Nehemiah), from these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.”
My question concerns his mention of six books. It seems to imply that Saint Melito of Sardis was including the two books from what we consider to be from the Apocrypha ( 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras):
Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Esdras, and 2 Esdras for a total of 6 Books.
If this is so, then it appears to be telling us that he believed that Ezra was the author of three of the six books listed in the 6 Books. And if this is so, it may be saying that he believed they should be included in the Canon.
While 1& 2 Esdras are considered books of the Apocrypha today, there are some people today who are claiming they were written by Ezra and quoted by our Lord. Most notably Timothy Schwab’s book: The Book of 2 Esdras.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this subject because it appears that Saint Melito of Sardis was saying these two books should be part of our Bible.
Unfortunately or fortunately we as mere humans will never know the exact truth about whether there are 66, 73, or 78 Books of the Holy Scriptures until the day we pass from this life to the next. One thing I believe to be true, it is not worth arguing about. We that are alive today and follow the Scriptures by sharing the Gospels should share the message of the Messiah. 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. It is time we quit dividing the Church and start uniting the Body of Christ through the message of Salvation.
What about the orthodox especially Ethiopian orthodox church accepts 15 books other than the 66 book of bible