What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

[NathanH83]

The old bait and switch. That was not your original claim now was it?

You ask "year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?"


Again your claim was "Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible." You originally said nothing about placing them in separate section. The old bait and switch.

John Wycliffe's (1328-1383) translation has the Apocrypha.

Martin Luther's (1534) translation has the Apocrypha.

The Coverdale Bible (1535) has the Apocrypha.

The Matthews Bible (1537) has the Apocrypha.

Taverner's Bible (1539) has the Apocrypha.

The Great Bible (1539) has the Apocrypha.

The Geneva Bible (1560) has the Apocrypha.

The Bishops' Bible (1568) has the Apocrypha.

The KJV (1611) has the Apocrypha.

The Holy Bible is the Old and New Testaments. Declaring something to be apocryphal is declaring that it’s not Holy Bible. So yes, they took them out. But I’m still wondering…. What year? Nobody has answered this yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

But 3 early church councils in the 4th century declared that these books are divine, canonical scripture.

The historical evidence for the Decree of Gelasius does not support its authenticity. See link.

What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

Hippo and Carthage changed nothing. Long after those synods\councils many did not accept them as canonical.

 

[Origen]

So yes, they took them out.

Still no evidence to support your claim.

John Wycliffe's (1328-1383) translation has the Apocrypha.

Martin Luther's (1534) translation has the Apocrypha.

The Coverdale Bible (1535) has the Apocrypha.

The Matthews Bible (1537) has the Apocrypha.

Taverner's Bible (1539) has the Apocrypha.

The Great Bible (1539) has the Apocrypha.

The Geneva Bible (1560) has the Apocrypha.

The Bishops' Bible (1568) has the Apocrypha.

The KJV (1611) has the Apocrypha.

 

[NathanH83]

The historical evidence for the Decree of Gelasius does not support its authenticity. See link.

What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

Hippo and Carthage changed nothing. Long after those synods\councils many did not accept them as canonical.

Where’s the ecumenical church council where all Christians declared those books to not be scripture?
Do you have the authority to make this decision for all of Christianity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

The early church believed that the original Jewish Bible contained those books, which is why the Septuagint contained them, witch is why the early church accepted them and declared them to be scripture in the 380’s and 390’s AD.

You seem to believe that if you say something over and over, it thus is a proven fact.

NOWHERE have you even ATTEMPTED to show that the Early Church (33 -313 AD) declared certain (as yet unnamed by you) books to be inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (canonical; Scripture). You've noted 3 or 4 people's personal opinions.... you noted 3 very obscure meeting (well after the Early Church period) that spoke of the lectionary in that diocese, but no formal declaration of any Pan-Christian, ecumenical, authoritative meeting/declaration.

It's silly for you to speak of taking something OUT when you've not proven they were IN.

But at some point in time, Protestants decided to agree with the unbelieving Jews and take those books out.

Please give the place and date of the meeting of every Protestant that officially, formally declared what books were IN and then took some of those OUT.

It's silly for you to speak of taking something OUT when you've not proven they were IN.


And you seem entirely ignorant that the Anglican Church (perhaps the largest Protestant group in the world) has a UNIQUE Bible that NO OTHER FAITH COMMUNITY agrees in, and it contains MORE books than your beloved post-Trent Catholic tome. And you seem entirely ignorant that the Lutheran Church (perhaps the second largest Protestant group in the world) has no official position on this topic (our Confessions are silent on this). You seem to think (oddly) that John Calvin spoke for ALL Protestants when in reality he spoke for a fairly small minority. Now I agree, Calvin's influence in 21st Century American/Canadian "Evangelicalism" is large, but in terms of Protestantism, it is not.

I’m wondering what year it was when this occurred.

You're wondering because is there is no year in that occurred.... no year when The Protestant Church declared what is IN or what is OUT. Never happened. Which might be one reason why the Anglican Bible is not the Lutheran Bible which is not the Calvinist Bible. And of course none of those are the Catholic Bible which is not the Greek Orthodox Bible which is not the Syrian Orthodox Bible which is not the Coptic Orthodox Bible. And since you seem SO focused on tomes, go to your local book store ou'll find Bibles with no Old Testament in them, just 27 New Testament books in the tome, but you might also find in the tome some maps, a table of contents, a concordance, etc. all IN that Bible.


You'll spend the rest of your life wondering about the year because it never happened. Not in any year. There is no Protestant Church to do that. And the world's 400,000,000 Protestants today (not to mention an even larger number now in Heaven) have never agreed on this. Not in any year.



.

 

[Josiah]

I’ve been told that those church councils were just local and don’t have the authority to make that decision for all of Christianity.

Correct.

Do you have the authority to make that decision for all of Christianity?

Do YOU? Because you seem to be proclaiming "them" to be canonical Scripture. That seems to be your agenda since you came to this site.





.

 

[Josiah]

The Holy Bible is the Old and New Testaments. Declaring something to be apocryphal is declaring that it’s not Holy Bible. So yes, they took them out. But I’m still wondering…. What year? Nobody has answered this yet.

"Bible" is a BOOK. A tome. It's what the word means. A collection of pages between two covers. You seem to be confusing a BOOK put out by one of the thousands of publishing houses with what is CANONCIAL SCRIPTURE. Any publishing house can put ANYTHING IT WANTS between two covers, especially since in no country is "BIBLE" copywritten, it's public domain. My Bible has about 2500 pages, a LOT of that content is NOT Scripture. But I usually use a phone app and it has no cover and no pages and isn't a Bible at all.

The issue, brother, is CANONICAL SCRIPTURE. What is regarded as EQUALLY the inerrant, canonical/normative/authoritative, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You seem to have an enormous, overriding agenda to say a lot of Christians should regard that collection as larger then you think they do BECAUSE you insist some meeting of Jews or Catholics or Orthodox or Protestants declared it so, but you can't state WHERE this happened or why that should be binding on the mysterious Christians which you rebuke but not name.... you insist on the YEAR "they" (who are they?) took out books (which books?) from some collection you've never shown was ever univerally embraced as canonical Scripture. You wonder about the YEAR Christians put some books in and then took some out.... and your wonder will continue because neither happen... no such meeting declared either in any year, at least for all Christianity (or all Protestantism).




.

 

[Origen]

Where’s the ecumenical church council where all Christians declared those books to not be scripture?

There isn't one. Just like there is NOT a council where ALL Christians declared those books to be Scripture.

Do you have the authority to make this decision for all of Christianity?

I have never suggested such a thing so your question is just silly.

 

[RichWh1]

The New Testament authors and early Christian writers in the second century cite only books contained in the Hebrew canon.6 Furthermore, the early Christian canon lists from 2 CE and many lists from 4 CE closely cohere with the books of the Hebrew canon and do not include the deuterocanonical books; that is, the authors of these early lists do not know of a “Septuagint canon

Was There a “Septuagint Canon”?

Often in the literature, “the Septuagint” refers to a different canon of Scripture than the Hebrew canon—including 4 or 6 extra books.

academic.logos.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

The Holy Bible is the Old and New Testaments. Declaring something to be apocryphal is declaring that it’s not Holy Bible. So yes, they took them out. But I’m still wondering…. What year? Nobody has answered this yet.

1. You confuse a book (which may contain ANYTHING the publisher wants) with CANONICAL SCRIPTURE.

2. When you prove Judaism and/or Christianity and/or the Protestant Church officially, formally, definitively, authoritatively declared that something IS canonical Scripture, then we can discuss how the self same later and in the same way declared it not. Brother, you have to prove something was IN before you can discuss the same later being OUT.



.

 

[NathanH83]

You seem to believe that if you say something over and over, it thus is a proven fact.

NOWHERE have you even ATTEMPTED to show that the Early Church (33 -313 AD) declared certain (as yet unnamed by you) books to be inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (canonical; Scripture). You've noted 3 or 4 people's personal opinions.... you noted 3 very obscure meeting (well after the Early Church period) that spoke of the lectionary in that diocese, but no formal declaration of any Pan-Christian, ecumenical, authoritative meeting/declaration.

It's silly for you to speak of taking something OUT when you've not proven they were IN.







Please give the place and date of the meeting of every Protestant that officially, formally declared what books were IN and then took some of those OUT.

It's silly for you to speak of taking something OUT when you've not proven they were IN.


And you seem entirely ignorant that the Anglican Church (perhaps the largest Protestant group in the world) has a UNIQUE Bible that NO OTHER FAITH COMMUNITY agrees in, and it contains MORE books than your beloved post-Trent Catholic tome. And you seem entirely ignorant that the Lutheran Church (perhaps the second largest Protestant group in the world) has no official position on this topic (our Confessions are silent on this). You seem to think (oddly) that John Calvin spoke for ALL Protestants when in reality he spoke for a fairly small minority. Now I agree, Calvin's influence in 21st Century American/Canadian "Evangelicalism" is large, but in terms of Protestantism, it is not.






You're wondering because is there is no year in that occurred.... no year when The Protestant Church declared what is IN or what is OUT. Never happened. Which might be one reason why the Anglican Bible is not the Lutheran Bible which is not the Calvinist Bible. And of course none of those are the Catholic Bible which is not the Greek Orthodox Bible which is not the Syrian Orthodox Bible which is not the Coptic Orthodox Bible. And since you seem SO focused on tomes, go to your local book store ou'll find Bibles with no Old Testament in them, just 27 New Testament books in the tome, but you might also find in the tome some maps, a table of contents, a concordance, etc. all IN that Bible.


You'll spend the rest of your life wondering about the year because it never happened. Not in any year. There is no Protestant Church to do that. And the world's 400,000,000 Protestants today (not to mention an even larger number now in Heaven) have never agreed on this. Not in any year.



.

Those “obscure” meetings are what bible scholars point to today to prove what books belong in the New Testament.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Those “obscure” meetings are what bible scholars point to today to prove what books belong in the New Testament.

Not even close.....

Just because there are THOUSANDS of "Church Council" meetings every year does NOT mean that the decisions of all of them are PAN-CHRISTIAN, ecumenical, binding, authoritative, definitive. And just because some meeting decided to include a book IN THE SUNDAY LECTIONARY (of only tht diocese) has nothing whatsoever to do with it thus being canonical Scripture (even for that single diocese).


It's interesting you think every Church Council meeting is binding in all matters for all Christians.... there have been THOUSANDS of such just in the Roman Catholic Church, there are THOUSANDS of them every year in Christianity (just in the USA). So you think ALL Christians are bound to all of them? Are you? So, brother, since YOU don't consider yourself bound to decisions of councils, why do you insist everyone else is (but ONLY on THIS single, exclusive, individual point, no other)?




.

 

[NathanH83]

The New Testament authors and early Christian writers in the second century cite only books contained in the Hebrew canon.6 Furthermore, the early Christian canon lists from 2 CE and many lists from 4 CE closely cohere with the books of the Hebrew canon and do not include the deuterocanonical books; that is, the authors of these early lists do not know of a “Septuagint canon

Was There a “Septuagint Canon”?

Often in the literature, “the Septuagint” refers to a different canon of Scripture than the Hebrew canon—including 4 or 6 extra books.

academic.logos.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true. The New Testament cites books like 2 Maccabees which has no Hebrew original.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Not even close.....

Just because there are THOUSANDS of "Church Council" meetings every year does NOT mean that the decisions of all of them are PAN-CHRISTIAN, ecumenical, binding, authoritative, definitive. And just because some meeting decided to include a book IN THE SUNDAY LECTIONARY (of only tht diocese) has nothing whatsoever to do with it thus being canonical Scripture (even for that single diocese).


It's interesting you think every Church Council meeting is binding in all matters for all Christians.... there have been THOUSANDS of such just in the Roman Catholic Church, there are THOUSANDS of them every year in Christianity (just in the USA). So you think ALL Christians are bound to all of them? Are you? So, brother, since YOU don't consider yourself bound to decisions of councils, why do you insist everyone else is (but ONLY on THIS single, exclusive, individual point, no other)?




.

Sounds to me like you’re questioning the New Testament books too.
You’re not going to find an ecumenical council that lists the New Testament books.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

You’re not going to find an ecumenical council that lists the New Testament books.

Nathan.... Andrew....



.... as I pointed out many times. That's true for the OLD and the NEW Testament. And the Apocrypha too. So, you have a problem, don't you. You can't discuss some book(s) being taken OUT by Christianity or Protestantism when as you admit none were ever put IN. You want a DATE, a PLACE, a formal declaration for the OUT when you admit there never was a date, a place for the formal declaration for the IN. Thus, the point that has been raised to you over and over and over (but I honestly don't think you usually READ what is posted to you).

Brother, there NEVER WAS any official "taking out" of any book in canonical Scripture. Your whole question is silly.... it's premised on an error on your part. One you now (at LONG, LONG last) admit. You want a date/place/formal decision for the OUT when you admit there never was that for the IN. How absurd.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but....


What WE 2.2 billion Christians today HAVE is a product of a consenses.... of TRADITION.... not some meeting with a date and place and decision. And that consensus has NEVER, not EVER, been absolute.... although more so with the NT than OT. It's pretty solid over (by our numbering) 66.... less so for an addition half to full dozen, less so for perhaps a dozen more. AND EVEN WITHIN that consensus, there has been a RANGE in their acceptance, their "canonicity" (the word we use for this in theology) - not all "Scripture" was view EQUALLY until after the Reformation (and even then, only in some denominations). Christians often placed the NT over the OT... the 39 OT ones over any DEUTERO (look up the word!) ones.... some NT books were considered less canonical than others (Revelation, Hebrews for example - often not even included in lectionaries). Luther and Calvin both felt for a few years that Romans and James were in conflict (both eventually changed their minds) BUT Romans is more canonical than James, they both argued. A lot of this disappeared after the Reformation but the Anglican Church officially embraced it with the distinction it made for the pre-Christ books - the 39 Articles did NOT remove anything from the BIBLE (as you note) but they DO insist some are only DUETERO canonical while others are fully canonical.

Sorry my American Evangelical friend.... it's not as "neat" or "objective" as your Sunday School teacher taught you. And I know it hurts American Evangelicals to admit that floppy book with "BIBLE" on the cover is a product of TRADITION (and fairly loose one at that) NOT the result of God sending a memo or Scripture including a "Table of Contents" or even the Church speaking in some definitive, ecumenical way. Nope. Not even close. OVER TIME, over a period of more than 1500 years - ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED YEARS - a consensus developed, one that is NOT perfect, NOT universal. I know this disturbs 21st Century American "Evangelicals" who were told that Tradition is a bad thing.... who were taught God sent a memo in 33 AD with a list of what books are Scripture on it. But they were just taught wrong. Tradition COUNTS - even if it RARELY is perfect or universal.

Sorry to burst your bubble. There's a LOT of false concepts in modern American "Evangelicalism."





.

 

[RichWh1]

Not true. The New Testament cites books like 2 Maccabees which has no Hebrew original.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a Jewish perspective and a scholarly viewpoint the Book of Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew although the original was not called Maccabees.

“The Hebrew original seems not to have borne the name "Maccabees," though it is not known what was its real designation. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." vi. 25) quotes Origen as authority for the name Σαρβηθ Σαβαναι”.

MACCABEES, BOOKS OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?​

Between AD 314-339, Eusebius removed “The Gospel of Thomas” and included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics".

(There may be earlier books removed, but I found that specific book, date and Bishop. As an ironic aside, it was part of his revision to the Septuagint by Origen, who listed the Gospel of Thomas among his known “apocrypha” books. Viva Protestantism and Sola Scriptura!).

 

[atpollard]

But I’m still wondering…. What year? Nobody has answered this yet.

The Hebrew Tanakh (old testament) dates back to ancient times, and does not include apocryphal books.

c. AD 900–1000 (Aleppo Codex oldest copy in Hebrew without apocrypha)
May 1885 (First removed in English for the KJV Bible)

 

[NathanH83]

The Hebrew Tanakh (old testament) dates back to ancient times, and does not include apocryphal books.

c. AD 900–1000 (Aleppo Codex oldest copy in Hebrew without apocrypha)
May 1885 (First removed in English for the KJV Bible)

I wasn’t asking about the modern Hebrew text. I was asking about Christian Bibles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?​

Between AD 314-339, Eusebius removed “The Gospel of Thomas” and included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but "the fictions of heretics".

(There may be earlier books removed, but I found that specific book, date and Bishop. As an ironic aside, it was part of his revision to the Septuagint by Origen, who listed the Gospel of Thomas among his known “apocrypha” books. Viva Protestantism and Sola Scriptura!).

I was talking about the Protestants in the 1500’s who removed books from the Old Testament. But I think you knew that already and are purposely play acting like you didn’t know any better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk