Patcher

Could someone tell me why Martin Luther (or other reformers) took out some of the books that the Catholic Church still have in today? Were the "extra" books there from the very beginning? If so, on what basis did the reformers have to take them out?

CJD

The simple answer is no, the canon differed in the early church (e.g., from Palestine to Alexandria). The Reformers, thinking it best to follow the church Fathers (especially those from the East), deemed the Apocrypha, et al. less-than-authoritative. Note, however, that these extra books were not excised from Protestant Bibles during the time of Reformation; that is a more recent event.

[edited to add: Luther himself said that these deutero-canonical books were "Profitable and good to read."]

CJD

Patcher

So could you tell me at what point they were added? The Catholic church seems to teach that they were always being used and that they were the ones who canonized the bible to begin with, so they canonized them along with all the others we have today. They say the reformers simply decided that they would take them out of the bibles they were translating into English because they didn't agree with some of the doctrines of the Catholic church.

The Catholic church claims they WERE the early church fathers and that they indeed used these books. (?)

Patcher

Forgive my ignorance. Obviously Catholic founders can only go back to the time of Jesus. I know what I'm trying to ask here, I just can't quite get it across. I guess I want to know why the reformers felt like the books should not be a part of the canon and should not be used. Didn't the Catholics canonize the bible? The reformers did not like the powers that the Catholic church had over the people, and didn't believe in some of the doctrines. Therefore they took out the books that taught these doctrines. But if these doctrines were there all along during the founding of christianity (which the Catholics say they are the founders of, right?) and the books were there to form the basis of early christianity, then didn't the reformers start their own religion? Based on how Martin Luther and Tyndale and some others interpreted the scriptures? I'm looking into which religion comes closest to the beginnings of christianity.

andrewcriddle

The deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books are not part of the Hebrew Bible accepted by Judaism, and there had long been a (minority) tradition going back cetainly to Jerome and possibly Origen (depending on how you interpret Origen's statements) that these books were not fully authoritative in the way that books in the Hebrew Bible were.

At the reformation the Reformers emphasized the secondary authority of the Apocrypha partly because of their general desire to go back to Hebrew (for the OT) and Greek (for the NT) and escape from the authority of the Latin Vulgate and partly because of their disapproval of specific teachings in some of the deuterocanonical books (eg 2 Maccabees).

Initially this involved putting the Apocrypha in an appendix at the end of the Old Testament but eventually the Apocrypha were often omitted altogether. This is partly due to the very strong doctrine of Biblical authority held by the Reformers which required a very sharp distinction between Biblical and non-Biblical books.

The council of Trent held that the Deuterocanonical books had the same authority as the rest of the Catholic Bible. Prior to the Reformation this was probably the majority Catholic opinion but a large minority of Catholic scholars would have disagreed and followed Jerome's opinion.

Andrew Criddle

Sensei Meela

One problem you'll find is that Christianity didn't have a singular beginning; to use the oft employed "tree" analogy, many people see Christianity as beginning with the "trunk" and then branching later on, but the more accurate picture reveals that it actually started with many "roots" that were consolidated or quashed in the process of 'truncation' (oy, sorry for that pun).

To somewhat answer your question, most of the excised books existed prior to the 1stC CE and were variously used by the differing "root" factions. (I'm thinking of those from the OT...it's been awhile since I've seen a Catholic NT, so I can't recall what books they use there that Protestants don't)

Patcher

Did some of the scholars follow Jerome's opinion, and if they did, does that mean they broke away from the Catholic church as well because of this? Without the deuterocanonical books, would the Catholic church have as much authority over the people? (Because would they have a basis to?)

Patcher

So again, there is absolutely no way to say definitively which religion actually was started and "authorized" by Jesus? (of course assuming a historical Jesus) I guess I'm only considering Catholics and Protestants and which one is closest to the original. But it seems they both go back to the "roots" and it is only a guess by either of them who is correct, right? But Catholics say they are infallible in determining these things, so they are correct. Is that right?

andrewcriddle

Within Roman Catholicism one may hold as a private opinion anything that the Bible and Church have not (yet) clearly condemned.

Until the Council of Trent declared that the deuterocanonical books had the same authority as the rest of the Bible an orthodox Roman Catholic scholar was entitled to hold that they had less authority than the other books.

A scholar would only become unorthodox in Roman Catholic terms if he continued to hold such an opinion after Trent while knowing that Trent had condemned it.

AFAIK nobody who accepted the rest of the teaching of Trent had problems with the decree on the Biblical Canon.

Andrew Criddle

Patcher

I'm guessing because the council was "infallible" and they believed that god spoke when they spoke. This makes sense. I understand this so much better, thanks!