Question 66. Ok, so the Catholic Bible has a few more books in it than other religions. Why is this? A wandering Protestant was trying to convert me tonight, and he was trying to tell me that our books were added AFTER Revelations, and were not valid. Of course I believe our version is correct, but is there a timeline of when the books were authored vs. when each religion adopted their respective versions? This guy will be contacting me again next week, and I said I would show him that it was THEY who took books OUT of the Bible, not us who added them. If they did indeed remove books, why were they not justified in doing this? Or were our 'extra' books added after Revelations as he said? I think he said Rev. was written in 90 A.D.

Answer: The Catholic canon of the Old Testament contains 46 books, while the Protestant canon contains 39. In actuality, the Catholic Church did not add seven books to the OT canon, nor did Protestants remove seven books. There were two separate canons. Catholics use the same Scripture canon as Jesus and the Apostles. This canon was called the Septuagint (Seventy), and referred to as "Alexandrian Canon". St. Matthew quoted from the Septuagint approximately 130 times in his Gospel. No reputable scholar will dispute the fact that the current canon has been in use by Catholics since Christ established the Church by conferring the Keys of the Kingdom (Matt. 16:19).  

The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament. Jews made use of it long before the Christian era. Since the language of the early Christian community was Greek, the Septuagint became its Bible. At the time of Christ it was recognized as a legitimate text and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. It is certain that neither Christ nor the apostles ever challenged the value of the Septuagint. That the Apostles and evangelists used the Septuagint is not in question. Out of approximately 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New, about 300 are direct quotations from the Septuagint and the remaining are paraphrases, especially in regard to the prophecies.

That the early Christian Church used the Septuagint is also not in question. As proof, let me quote from what I hope will be considered reliable, yet non-Catholic sources:

Encyclopedia Judaica: 

“Together with the New Testament, the Septuagint constituted the Bible of the Christian Church, and is still the Bible of the Greek Orthodox Church. The Old Testament contains a translation of all the books of the Hebrew canon. It also embodies the deuterocanonical books of the Catholic Church (Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ben-Sira, 1 Baruch).” (“Bible,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 4, 852-853).

Another Jewish source is the TANAKH, The Holy Scriptures: 

“With the growth of Christianity in the first century, the Church adopted the Septuagint as its Bible, and the Septuagint was translated into the languages of the various Christian communities.” 

Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary: 

     “When Christianity penetrated the world of the Greek-speaking Jews, and then the Gentiles, the Septuagint was the Bible used for preaching the gospel. Most of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are taken from this Greek Bible. In fact, the Christians adopted the Septuagint so wholeheartedly that the Jewish people lost interest in it. They produced other Greek versions that did not lend themselves so easily to Christian interpretation.

     The Septuagint thus became the ‘Authorized Version’ of the early Gentile churches. To this day it is the official version of the Old Testament used in the Greek Orthodox Church. After the books of the New Testament were written and accepted by the early church, they were added to the Old Testament Septuagint to form the complete Greek version of the Bible.” (TANAKH, The Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985) xvi.) 

It is readily apparent that the Jews of the second half of the first century believed that the Christians of that time were playing fast and loose with the Septuagint translation, using it to show the prefiqurement of Christ as the long awaited Messiah. 

Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce:    

“There were two main reasons why the Jews lost interest in the Septuagint. One was that from the first century AD onwards the Christians adopted it as their version of the Old Testament, and used it freely in their propagation and defense of the Christian faith.” (F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: How we got our English Bible (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1984) 141.) 

The World of the Bible:    

“In antiquity, the Septuagint, the Bible of the Christians in the pre-Vulgate period, was translated into Latin (Vetus Latina), Syriac (the Syro-Palestinian translations), Coptic (Sahidic, Bohairic, and Akhmimic), Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Slavic, Gothic and Arabic.” (A.S. Van Der Woude, Gen. ed. The World of the Bible (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986) 177).  

The Septuagint contained together with the books found in the present Hebrew Bible additional books and passages now known as deuterocanonical.

In view of the important place Biblical terms occupy in this discussion, we ought to consider the meaning of these terms before proceeding.

All the books found in the Hebrew Bible are called protocanonical (first canon); those found only in the Greek (Septuagint) are called deuterocanonical (second canon).

The following is a list of the Old Testament deuterocanonical books as they appear in the sequence used in modern Catholic Bible translations accompanied by the approximate date and original language of composition:

Title                                  Date                                         Language

Book of Tobit                     Early 2nd cent. BC                      Aramaic

Book of Judith                    End 2nd - Beg. 1st cent. BC        Hebrew

1st Book of Maccabees     100 BC                                        Hebrew

2nd Book of Maccabees    125-100 BC                                Greek

Book of Wisdom               100 BC                                        Greek

Book of Sirach                   200-175 BC                                Hebrew

Book of Baruch                 150-60 BC                                   Hebrew 

Parts of the Book of Daniel, which were added to the Greek manuscript at the time of its translation from the Hebrew, i.e., Song of the Three Young Men (3:24-90); Susanna (Chapter 13:1-14, 42) and Bel and the Dragon (Chapter 14).

Parts of the Book of Esther, which also were added to the Greek manuscript at the time of its translation, i.e., six additions totaling 107 verses. The additions are 11:2-12:6; 13:1-7; 13:8-14; 15:1-16; 16:1-24 and 10:4-11:1.

Protestants usually refer to the deuterocanonical books as Apocryphal — not divinely inspired. If they are printed in Protestant Bibles at all, they are printed under that heading.

For the Catholic, the word apocryphal means a work is neither inspired nor authentic. It also can mean it is not the work of the author to whom it is ascribed or, if it is anonymous, does not belong to the date to which it is assigned.

For the Protestant, the word apocryphal might have the same meanings ascribed to it by Catholics or it could refer to a deuterocanonical work, depending on its context.

Because of the double uses of the word apocryphal, confusion may arise easily. Catholics do not apply the word apocryphal to the deuterocanonical books.  

A significant period in the history of the Jewish Bible is at the end of the first century, some ten to thirty years after the destruction of the Temple. By that time a strong rabbinical academy had been established by Yohanan ben Zakkai at Yavneh (Greek, Jamnia), located near the coast between Jaffa and Ashod approximately twelve miles south of present day Tel Aviv. Rabban (Rabbi) Zakkai knew that in order to preserve the organic body of Judaism it would be necessary to have an organized group of men to take over the duties and responsibilities of the now defunct Sanhedrin. He therefore organized a council of teachers, the Bet Din, which served as senate, as court, and as parliament. In other words the voice of scattered Israel. It was here that they began the compilation of their Biblical canon. 

What is the difference between the books accepted by the Jews of Alexandria and the Jews of Palestine? The deuterocanonical books were rejected by the Palestinian Jews by the use of narrow and rigid criteria. These criteria were: 1) conformity to the Torah ; 2) of antiquity, i.e., written not later that the time of Esdras (mid- to late fifth century BC); 3) written in the Hebrew language; and 4) of Palestinian origin.

The early Christians used the Septuagint to show the prefigurement of Christ. Christ’s Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection had all been prophesied in the Septuagint.

Historian Giuseppi Ricciotti explained the antagonism and subsequent rejection of the Septuagint by the Jews:

“Under the influence of anti-Christian animus [hostility], the Septuagint was repudiated in the second century AD and other translations were substituted for it (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and perhaps the anonymous Quinta, Sexta, and Septima; but these were also in Greek. The Greek Bible was indispensable for Alexandrian Judaism and for practically all the rest of the diaspora as well.”

It is reasonable to assume the Palestinian rabbis might have felt obligated to establish their canon in reaction to the Christian evangelists. The rabbis seemed to have accepted as sacred and canonical only those books distinguished by the four criteria previously mentioned. Their translations primarily were meant to be more faithful to the Hebrew texts.

The deuterocanonical books did not meet these strict requirements, and despite the great spiritual value of some of them and the esteem in which they were held, they were rejected.

In light of the discussions, which continued long after Yavneh, it would hardly be justified in believing the Palestinian Canon was finally settled. The available evidence points to finalization of the 39-book canon at the end of the 2nd century.

The Protestant churches have continued to exclude the deuterocanonical writings from their canons. Presbyterians and Calvinists, especially since the Westminster Synod of 1648, have been the most uncompromising enemies of any recognition of these books.

One argument put forth by our Protestant brethren against the use of the deuterocanonical books is they are not specifically quoted as Scripture in the New Testament, though the New Testament does contain a number of allusions to them. But the same may be said of several Old Testament books accepted by Protestants such as Ruth, Esther, Obadiah, Ezra, Nahum, Judges, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes and Canticles.

The admitted absence of any explicit citation of the deuterocanonical writings does not therefore prove they were regarded as inferior to the writings included in the Palestinian canon. Orchard supports this premise:

“The wide popularity of the deuterocanonical books enjoyed in the early Church is finally shown by their use in the liturgy and from the many illustrations taken from them found in the catacombs; there are representations from Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Maccabees, and Daniel 3:24 ff.” (Orchard, Bernard. Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons. 1953.)

A comparison of Hebrews, Chapter 11 with 2 Macc., Chapters 6 and 7, reveals unmistakable references in the former to the heroism of the martyrs, who are glorified in the latter. There are close affinities of thought and, in some cases, of language, between 1 Peter 1:6-7 and Wis. 3:5-6; 1 Cor. 10:9-10 and Jth. 8:24-25; 1 Cor. 6:13 and Sir. 36:20.

It must be remembered the New Testament does not provide a list of the Old Testament books used by Christ and His Apostles and, when Christianity began, the Jews had not yet established a canon. It can, however, be proved from tradition that the full list of Old Testament books — including the deuterocanonicals — was authorized by the Apostles.

The testimony of Christian writers during the first three centuries is unanimous on this point. We can trace the reception of these books from the very time of the Apostles — Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and others quoted them, and many other early writers quoted them as Scripture.

There is nothing more complete than the pre-Nicene tradition for the Roman Catholic canon of the Old Testament. For the deuterocanonical books, we have the witness of Church Father after Church Father; we find them placed in every manuscript of the Septuagint, translated in the Old Latin version and quoted in controversy against heretics.

The Fathers of the Church instructed that the books of Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas were to be read to the catechumens for edification and instruction. All the deuterocanonical writings are quoted by the apostolic writers and the early Fathers in the same way as the rest of the sacred books.

Conciliar Decisions

The witness of the Church in the fourth century, though not as forceful as that of the first three centuries, is strongly in favor of the deuterocanonical books.

There was some difference of opinion among a few of the Fathers and this probably led to the conciliar decisions; and here too, we see the weight of authority and tradition on the side of the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books.

Two documents of prime importance in the history of the canon provide us with the first formal statements of papal authority on the subject. The first is called the Decretal of Gelasius, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked in Rome by Pope Damasus I in the year AD 382. The text of which is as follows:

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Joshua Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles [Song of Solomon] one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] one book.

“Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee [Hosea] one book, Micheas [Micah] one book, Joel one book, Abdias [Obadiah] one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc [Habakkuk] one book, Sophonias [Zephaniah] one book, Aggeus [Haggai] one book, Zacharias [Zechariah] one book, Malachias [Malachi] one book.

“Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras [Ezra] two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

“Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

“The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen.  To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

“Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book.

“Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle.”

The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in the year AD 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals and are identical with the canon listed by the Council of Trent.

The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in agreement with Rome on this question. The Synod of Hippo (AD 393), and the third and fourth Councils of Carthage (AD 397 and 419), in which St. Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal specifically with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. This list became known as the African code.

The Ecumenical Council of Second Nicea in AD 787 ratified the decision made by the Fathers at Hippo and Carthage:

      “In the year 418-419, all canons formally made in sixteen councils held at Carthage, one at Melevis, one at Hippo, that were approved of, were read, and received a new sanction from a great number of bishops, then met in Synod in Carthage. This collection is the Code of the African Church, which was always in greatest repute in all Churches next after the Code of the Universal Church.”

If doubts remained as to the canonical books, they were put to rest by the Councils of Florence and Trent. During the Council of Florence (AD 1442), and with its approval, Pope Eugenius IV issued several bulls or decrees. In the Bull of union with the Copts, he wrote:

“It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testaments — 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 ... [the document went on to list the current Canon]”       

The Council of Trent promulgated the definitive list of Old Testament canon — the same books used by Jesus Christ and His Apostles.  

Luther’s Rejection of the Alexandrian Canon. 

Martin Luther, the originator of the Protestant Reformation, taught an innovative theology, contrary to the revealed truth of Holy Scripture. He taught a modified view of “predestination”. In his view, God pre-ordained certain people to be saved and others to be damned. As God is immutable, this determination was irreversible. How would one know if he or she was one of the saved? Luther referred to John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” Luther claimed that this passage referred to making a personal declaration to Jesus as “Lord and Savior rather than the sacrament of Baptism. This definition went directly against every scripture commentary written in the previous 1,400+ years.

Luther taught that if one made this personal declaration it would be evidence that they were under the power of the Holy Spirit and therefore saved and bound for heaven regardless of the life led. One could live a holy life and be damned, and conversely live an evil life, die unrepentant, and still be saved. He advised people to “Sin boldly, but believe more boldly.” He claimed that a person could “commit murder and fornication a thousand times a day” and still be saved. Luther’s doctrine denied the doctrines of purgatory and free will. The foundation for the doctrine of free will is found in Sirach 11:15-20. One of the foundations for the doctrine of purgatory is found in 2 Maccabees 12:43f. Since Luther could not reasonably remove these books from the Bible, he simply rejected the Old Testament used by the Catholic Church and accepted the canon assembled by Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. 

The Book of Revelation 22:18-19 states: “I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Emphasis mine). As the book of Revelation was written long before the New Testament canon was established the words “this book” cannot refer to the entire Bible as it exists today, but only to the Book of Revelation.