Other books

[hillclimber1]

In talking with a new convert, :godisgood: the subject came up over the exclusion of several "Books of the Bible" that are not included today. What's that all about? Serious question, as all I've thought about that is that the RCC has some, but I'm woefully ignorant of this.

 

[BobRyan]

The "other books" were not considered to be sacred scripture until the RCC introduced that error.

Jerome AND LUTHER included them as "a separate section" in their translations - but did not indicate that they were scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[hillclimber1]

Where are they? Is there a list?

 

[Gold Dragon]

In talking with a new convert, :godisgood: the subject came up over the exclusion of several "Books of the Bible" that are not included today. What's that all about? Serious question, as all I've thought about that is that the RCC has some, but I'm woefully ignorant of this.

Praise God for the new convert!

The whole issue of the canon and the apocrypha is a pretty complicated story if you want all the nitty gritty details.

Contents
There are additional OT books in the Catholic Bible. They are called the Deuterocanon (2nd canon) by Catholics and the Apocrypha (which means hidden) by Protestants. The Deuterocanon consists of 7 books and additions to Esther and Daniel. To complicate matters, the Eastern Orthodox bible has an additional 5 books on top of the Catholic Deuterocanon.

Their contents are Jewish writings before the time of Christ and for the most part, after the time of the prophets (ie Malachi ~ 400 BC). Languages include hebrew, aramaic and greek.

Septuagint
The reason they are included is because of they were found in the Septuagint or LXX which was thought to be the predominant Greek version of the bible used by Jews in Palestine before and after the time of Christ. It was thought to be translated from Hebrew between the 3rd and 1st century BC. The oldest complete surviving Greek manuscripts of the bible (~400 AD) have the NT in what is known as the alexandrian text-type (you may have heard this term from KJVO debates) and the OT in what is thought to be copies of the Septuagint.

Jamnia
In 70 AD, the Council of Jamnia among Jewish leaders of that day was believed to have convened, possibly in connection with the Fall of Jerusalem which occurred the same year. One issue of discussion was the canon of the Hebrew bible and at that time it was determined that the Hebrew canon would not include that we now refer to as the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books. So the Hebrew bible to this day is essentially the same as the protestant OT with several mergings (ie, Kings, Samuel and the minor prophets are one book each) and some reordering.

Jerome and the Vulgate
Jewish councils had little bearing on the Christian bible until the offical Latin translation of the bible by Jerome completed in 405 AD, the Vulgate. Counter to the prevaling thought of the day in which the Septuagint dominated, Jerome elected to use the Hebrew Bible as the basis for the OT which did not include the deuterocanon because of Jamnia. Jerome referred to those books as apocrypha. The other major player of the day was Augustine who supported the Septuagint and it appears that he won out because the Vulgate ultimately included the deuterocanon.

Reformation
The Vulgate essentially dominanted for several centuries even after the East-West schism of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (1054) until around the protestant reformation (1517). With the loss of authority of Rome, individuals, countries and national churches started creating their own translations in their own languages. Most of them were translated from the Vulgate and included the deuterocanon.

Martin Luther did not consider the deuterocanon equal to the rest of the OT and placed it in a separate section called the "Apocrypha" in his german version of the bible (1534). He felt the apocrypha supported elements of Catholicism such as Purgatory and prayer for the dead that he was protesting against.

Catholics held the Council of Trent (1545-63) in response to the protestant reformation and one of the issues was the books of the canon. They felt the need to formally state that the books of the biblical canon included the deuterocanon.

English Bibles
James I commissioned the KJV in 1611 which had a separate "Apocrypha" section which included the deuterocanon as well as 3 other books. English bibles continued to be printed with the Apocrypha with some minor exceptions until the 1800s. Of particular note is the first english bible published in America by Robert Aitken in 1782 which was a KJV without the apocrypha.

In the 1800s bible societies rose in prominence such as the British and Foreign Bible Society (1804) and the American Bible Society (1816). The Trinitarian Bible Society formed in 1831 because of demand for bibles without the apocrypha. By the late 1800s, all protestant bibles printed by bible societies excluded the apocrypha.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

In talking with a new convert, :godisgood: the subject came up over the exclusion of several "Books of the Bible" that are not included today. What's that all about? Serious question, as all I've thought about that is that the RCC has some, but I'm woefully ignorant of this.

Question--is your friend referring to the Deuterocanonicals (ie the extra books of the LXX OT, also called the "Apocrypha" by some), or is he referring to all the spurious "gospels" (and "acts" and "apocalypses") written by Gnostics and other heretics falsely attributed to the apostles? He may be referring to the latter, as it is fashionable these days--given the popularity of the DaVinci Code, et al--to suggest that all these other "gospels" (etc) are just as legitimate as what we actually have in the NT, and that it was the "power-hungry, misogynist, patriarchal Church" that purposefully "suppressed them".

 

[Gold Dragon]

Question--is your friend referring to the Deuterocanonicals (ie the extra books of the LXX OT, also called the "Apocrypha" by some), or is he referring to all the spurious "gospels" (and "acts" and "apocalypses") written by Gnostics and other heretics falsely attributed to the apostles? He may be referring to the latter, as it is fashionable these days--given the popularity of the DaVinci Code, et al--to suggest that all these other "gospels" (etc) are just as legitimate as what we actually have in the NT, and that it was the "power-hungry, misogynist, patriarchal Church" that purposefully "suppressed them".

Good point. Early Christian Writings has a good list of all Christian writings before 300AD, including the Gnostic writings, the various "gospels" "acts" and "apocalypses" as well as the writings of the early church fathers.http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

[hillclimber1]

Question--is your friend referring to the Deuterocanonicals (ie the extra books of the LXX OT, also called the "Apocrypha" by some), or is he referring to all the spurious "gospels" (and "acts" and "apocalypses") written by Gnostics and other heretics falsely attributed to the apostles? He may be referring to the latter, as it is fashionable these days--given the popularity of the DaVinci Code, et al--to suggest that all these other "gospels" (etc) are just as legitimate as what we actually have in the NT, and that it was the "power-hungry, misogynist, patriarchal Church" that purposefully "suppressed them".

Sorry, both he and I are woefully ignorant of these writings. He brought with him, just the knowledge that there were some. He knows now that the Bible we have today lacks nothing.

 

[hillclimber1]

Thank you GD, and the rest, you've given me more to look at than I wanted to have to deal with. I'll get the flavor of them. Again thanks......hill

 

[Gold Dragon]

Thank you GD, and the rest, you've given me more to look at than I wanted to have to deal with. I'll get the flavor of them. Again thanks......hill

Sorry about the length. I guess I get a little overexcited when someone wants to know about history. I know ... I'm sad.

It was a good opportunity for me to review my understanding of the story and fill in some blanks that I've had in the past. Thank you for it.