This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why does the Protestant canon has less books than normal bibles?

#1CorporateKnightPosted 6/20/2011 1:04:40 PM
I know that Luther took them out but why?
#2KNessJMPosted 6/20/2011 1:10:12 PM
Why can't I has cheezburger?
---
Quote of the Week: "All across the Milky Way, life softly fades."
#3CIA911Posted 6/20/2011 1:10:36 PM
I don't know that it's just Protestant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament
---
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?
#4SirThinkALotPosted 6/20/2011 6:34:59 PM
There were various reasons, in some cases its because they were almost certainly NOT written by the claimed author, Wisdom of Solomon, for example was written several hundred years after he died.

The additions to Daniel, Ezera and Esther appear in teh Septuagint(the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but not older Hebrew manuscripts.(suggesting they were likely added later). In the case of Daniel in particular, his characterization in these 'additional' stories is completely different than in the Hebrew text.

To be honest I'm not sure why some books like the Maccabees were excluded
---
Read my blog: http://sirthinkalotsthoughts.blogspot.com/
PSN name: SirThinkALot
#5NoTitleRequiredPosted 6/20/2011 7:26:07 PM
SirThinkALot posted...
There were various reasons, in some cases its because they were almost certainly NOT written by the claimed author, Wisdom of Solomon, for example was written several hundred years after he died.

So?

The additions to Daniel, Ezera and Esther appear in teh Septuagint(the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but not older Hebrew manuscripts.(suggesting they were likely added later).

Which older Hebrew manuscripts are you referring to? And if the early Church, including the apostles, used the Septuagint as their Old Testament (which they did, as it's the Septuagint that's quoted from in the New Testament), are you going to distrust it?

To be honest I'm not sure why some books like the Maccabees were excluded

The Jews don't include any of the Deuterocanonical books in their canon, but the Jewish canon wasn't set until a century after the advent of Christianity, at which point a hypothesised council or series of councils at Jamnia repudiated the canonical nature of the Deuterocanon at the same time that the Jewishness of believers in Christ was rejected.
---
Taste the fountain of immortality.
http://i43.tinypic.com/iqehc6.jpg
#6the_hedonistPosted 6/20/2011 9:16:10 PM
We do not believe they are inspired. They do not have the ring of truth to them. Early in Christian history, they were not relegated to the same level of canon as the rest of the Scripture (being called the "deuterocanon" or second canon). We cast doubt over whether Jesus considered them Scripture. Some argue that they make contradictions between these books and the canon.

They may be applicable for Christians to read for historical purposes or for the edification of the Church in the same way that Christians read C.S. Lewis or Max Lucado, but I do not believe they are in the same level as Scripture.
---
Everything that doesn't have to do with elephants is irrelephant.
~The Christian Hedonist~
#7CorporateKnight(Topic Creator)Posted 6/21/2011 4:04:53 AM
Its not called deuterocanon because its "secondary" >_>
Its meant to be "second" because it came after, they have always had the same status as the others
#8NoTitleRequiredPosted 6/21/2011 4:10:37 AM
CorporateKnight posted...
Its not called deuterocanon because its "secondary" >_>
Its meant to be "second" because it came after, they have always had the same status as the others


Plus as far as I'm aware, the early councils which dealt with the canon of Scripture just included them in the Old Testament without giving them a different division.
---
Taste the fountain of immortality.
http://i43.tinypic.com/iqehc6.jpg
#9WhereDidItGoPosted 6/21/2011 4:49:35 AM
Chaos Scade posted...
Plus as far as I'm aware, the early councils which dealt with the canon of Scripture just included them in the Old Testament without giving them a different division.

That's what I've seen as well. Until Martin Luther the deuterocanonical books of the Bible were never omitted or put in a separate section of the Bible.

As for why Luther removed them, it is to my knowledge that he did so because they didn't line up with his personal theology. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation, plus called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James conflicted with his view on good works. It is also said he added the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 to his German translation to help justify his teaching in sola fide.
---
"It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching. "
St. Francis of Assisi
#10SilviiroPosted 6/21/2011 7:23:22 AM
It's just a dispute as to whether the Septuagint canon should be used or the modern Jewish canon should be used. As far as I know there aren't any unique teachings derived from the books not included so it isn't very significant.
---
"I have offended God and mankind because my work didn't reach the quality it should have." -- Leonardo da Vinci