why does the catholic bible have 7 more books

Why do Catholics have 7 extra books** in their Bible? When were they added and why? , Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, and Judith
Last question first, because it's just wrong, wrong, wrong! Catholics did not "add" 7 books to the Bible. by those who disagreed with the concepts (such as purgatory) that were taught in them. It can be proven historically that the 46, which include the 7 books listed above, were in the first manuscripts, and in the first Bibles. It was because of the Reformation that these books were removed. Thus, they are not "extra". The correct questions to ask are, "Why do Protestant Bibles not have these 7 books? " "When were they removed? " As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or. (Note: the term "apocryphya" is a disparaging word, meaning "false, or of questionable authenticity". Catholics refer to these 7 books as the "deuterocanon", meaning, second canon, apocryphya. ) (that is, the, and later ratified at numerous church councils. That is, it was the Catholic Church which, discerned what writings were (God-breathed) and what were not. See for a non-exhaustive list of ancient Christian texts that existed in the first centuries. I am amazed at this list--there are of manuscripts and writings about Jesus in existence that were rejected by the Catholic Church as not being inspired. It makes one wonder how any Christian who rejects the authority of the Catholic Church could trust the Church's decision to include, say, the. That is, each and every time a Christian cites Scripture, he is giving tacit submission to the authority of the, whether he realizes it or not. For, as St. Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church. " Another objection that's often raised regarding these 7 books is that they contain factual errors. A common example is in the book of Judith it states that King Nebuchadnezzar is the king of the Assyrians, when history tells us he was actually a Babylonian king. However, the book of Judith is not meant to be a historical novel.


Biblical scholars agree that this book is a parable. "The charge of historical error is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the book s genre. The supposed "errors" are actually cues to the ancient audience to tell them what kind of literature they were reading. Everyone, and certainly every literate Jew of the period, knew which nation Nebuchadnezzar ruled. The reason he is presented as king of Assyria in the very first verse of the book is that the author wants to telegraph to his audience, that they are not reading ordinary historical writing. " ncidentally, if we're going to dismiss because they contain factual errors, then we ought to dismiss the, which contains a factual error: Jesus says that the "is the smallest of all the seeds. " It is not. Thus, if Christians hold that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired, despite this factual error, they ought not dismiss other books of the Bible simply because they contain historical, geographic, scientific or other factual errors. Yet we understand that in the example above of Jesus claiming the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, he is not proclaiming a truth of botany, but a parable. "If we conclude that Jesus is making a scientific assertion we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were. Because (Matthew) is not making scientific assertions, it is wrong to charge (Matthew) with scientific error. If someone draws erroneous scientific conclusions from a misreading of (Matthew), the error belongs not to (Matthew) but to the person who has misread it. Therefore we should not say that (Matthew) does not have "full scientific accuracy" a statement that is bound to disturb the faithful and undermine their confidence in Scripture. Instead we should say that (Matthew)is if we treat the text as though it were. The same applies to statements such as "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible. " In fact we should, for everything asserted in Sacred Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit, and he does not make mistakes. The burden is on us to recognize what the Spirit is and is not asserting, and we may stumble into error if we make a mistake in doing this. This applies to science or history or faith or morals or salvation or any other subject.


The error belongs to us as interpreters, not to the Holy Spirit and not to the Scripture that he inspired. " In the Catholic Bible, the Old Testament contains extra books called the Apocrypha (some have called them "LOST BOOKS"). A lady from Element is in a Bible study with some Catholic ladies, she sent in a question and asked why our scriptures do not include the additions to Esther that the Catholic scriptures do. So, here is my not so short answer for all of you. The verses in question are Esther 10:4-16:24. This is a whole can of worms so bear with me. I'll give you a short answer and then a long one - the short one is this: The Additions to Esther is most likely the work of an Egyptian Jew, writing around 170 BC, who sought to give the book a more religious tone, and to suggest that the Jews were saved from destruction because of their piety. The additions completely change the tone of the book from what was originally intended from the Hebrew Manuscripts. and the additions were NEVER in the Hebrew scriptures. The "lost books" or Apocrypha were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren't lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place. They were not referenced by Jesus. Jesus directly referenced the entire Jewish canon of Scripture by referring to Abel (the first martyr in the Old Testament) and Zacharias (the last martyr in the OT) (Matt. 23:35). He also never quotes directly from any of the apocryphal writings, but makes numerous references to the Old Testament books. They contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) or the condoning of magic (Tobit 6:5-7). They have serious historical inaccuracies. In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture, known as the apocrypha. The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B. C. More specifically, it is used of the 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired.


The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. For Esther, the additional six chapters originally first appeared in a translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. The verses were interspersed in Esther in the Septuagint. The early church father Jerome used the Septuagint in translating what is known as the Latin Vulgate (it is what the King James Bible was translated from. Latin, not Greek). As far as Esther goes, Jerome recognized the additional verses as additions not present in the Hebrew Text and placed them at the end of his Latin translation as chapters 10:4-16:24. However, some modern Catholic English Bibles restore the Septuagint order, such as Esther in the NAB. The extra chapters include several prayers to God, perhaps because it was felt that the above-mentioned lack of mention of God was inappropriate in a holy book. Many believe that Additions to Esther is the work of an Egyptian Jew, writing around 170 BC, who sought to give the book a more religious tone, and to suggest that the Jews were saved from destruction because of their piety. The additions completely change the tone of the book from what was originally intended from the Hebrew Manuscripts. By the time Esther was written, there was a new foreign power on the horizon as a future threat to Judah, it was the Macedonians of Alexander the Great. They defeated the Persian empire about 150 years after the time of the story of Esther. This may have led to the Egyptian Jew adding the extra chapters trying to reinforce the ideal of remaining pure and separate under a new foreign super power. In addition, modern Roman Catholic scholars openly recognize the Greek additions as clearly being "additions" to the text. Hope that answers the question, Aaron

  • Views: 29

why do we believe in the bible
why do we need to study moral theology
why the king james bible is wrong
why the apocrypha isn t in the bible
why the apocrypha is not in the bible
why was religion highly valued during the elizabethan era
why is it called the king james bible