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

[Origen]

It sounds to me that you’re claiming that the church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage are fictitious councils that never really took place.

The historical evidence for the Decree of Gelasius does not support its authenticity. However that does not mean the council itself was fictitious.

I would ask you if that’s what you are claiming, but since you never answer my questions about your claims, then I won’t get my hopes up.

I do. You just don't like the answers.

 

[NathanH83]

Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!

So many false claims here.

The council of Trent in 1546 is NOT the first time the Catholics declared these books to be holy scripture. The first time there were church councils officially declaring them to be holy, divine scripture was in multiple early church councils in the 4th century, namely the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the 380’s and 390’s, more than a thousand years before the council of Trent.

Also, the Bibles used by the early church during the first 400 years DID contain these books. Every Greek and Latin translation found that the early church used contained these books. Plus there’s hundreds of quotations from early church fathers quoting these books as scripture.

The claim that none of them were in Hebrew is false. There is much evidence 1 Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew. Jerome traveled to Bethlehem and claimed the Jewish rabbis had Hebrew copies of 1 Maccabees that they were hiding. Tobit was found in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sirach claims in the intro that it was originally in Hebrew, but translated into Greek. Sirach was found in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

2 Maccabees has no Hebrew original, since it was addressed to the Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt, and thus it was written in the language that they could understand. The same thing is true of many New Testament books. So what’s the problem with that? Certainly we’re not going to rip out the New Testament.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

I’m guessing some time in the 1500’s?

It's impossible to take something out unless it was first put in. So, Nathan, before we can discuss this topic, you need to quote the meeting of ALL CHRISTIANS that officially, formally, definitively PUT IN certain books in a collection of canonical books. Just give the date and place of that meeting, note that (at least) all Christian bishops from all of Christianity were present and voting, and then quote the meeting where it declared "these books are hereby being put in the CANON." Regional meetings don't count. Lectionaries don't count.

Only when we know what books were IN (via official, formal, definitive, PAN-CHRISTIAN declaration of the CANON specifically) can we then discuss if any of those were removed, and by whom.




Brother, noting 3 little meetings as you do is beyond silly. It is ABSURD for you to just assume that if the words "CHURCH COUNCIL" are used THEREFORE it is an official, formal, binding meeting of ALL Christians for all time, that it is ECUMENICAL. Friend, my parish had a meeting last week.... it was the CHURCH COUNCIL meeting that we hold on the first Thursday of each month. We decided to begin our monthly potlucks again. Now, you just assume that because it was called a "CHURCH COUNCIL" , ergo this is authoritative declaration for all 2.2 billion Christians until Jesus comes back and so every church has to have a monthly potluck until then. Do you see how inredibly silly you are being? There were NOT Ecumenical Councils of the whole church.... there were AT MOST 3-7 of those and the ones you quote were not among them. They were very obscure, largely impotent, rather forgotten LOCAL meetings of a diocese. And even then, the issue was NOT what is and is not canonical but what may and may not be included in the Lectionary in that region. A whole different enchilada, an ENTIRELY different issue. There's a good reason why NONE of the Orthodox churches paid ANY attention to these obscure, powerless, regional meetings.... had they been councils of the whole church, the lectionary of the Syrian Orthodox Church would be the same as that of the Roman Catholic Church, and it's not and it's never been. These were tiny, LOCAL, powerless meetings.... long forgotten.... but in the Reformation, the RCC tried to suggest it itself (alone, uniquely, individually) had always agreed with it itself along on this, and they discovered those 3 little meetings of it itself.



.

 

[Josiah]

The Apocrypha is alluded to in the New Testament. John 10:22 and Hebrews 11:35 allude to the Maccabees, and Hebrews 13:2 alludes to Tobit. Also, Daniel 8 and 11 are prophecies about the events fulfilled in Maccabees.

This would be entirely irrelevant, even if it were true.

NOWHERE in the NT is there ANY MENTION of a book you label as "Apocrypha." That's simply an outright lie; NO such book is mentioned, there is NO such book reference in the NT. Do a word search of the NT and this will PROVE it.

Now, EVENTS mentioned in non-canonical books MIGHT be mentioned in canonical books, but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. History is history, that it might be mentioned in a book doesn't ergo make that book canonical Scripture. THINK, my brother.

You can hold that ANY words are canonical Scripture...... but to insist that CHRISTIANITY has declared so (in a formal, official manner) you need to reference the official, authoritative PAN-CHRISTIAN meeting that specially STATED so, listed them and called them CANONICAL SCRIPTURE. Not some denominational meeting, not some local meeting, not some decision about the lectionary.




.

 

[NathanH83]

It's impossible to take something out unless it was first put in. So, Nathan, before we can discuss this topic, you need to quote the meeting of ALL CHRISTIANS that officially, formally, definitively PUT IN certain books in a collection of canonical books. Just give the date and place of that meeting, note that (at least) all Christian bishops from all of Christianity were present and voting, and then quote the meeting where it declared "these books are hereby being put in the CANON." Regional meetings don't count. Lectionaries don't count.

Only when we know what books were IN (via official, formal, definitive, PAN-CHRISTIAN declaration of the CANON specifically) can we then discuss if any of those were removed, and by whom.




Brother, noting 3 little meetings as you do is beyond silly. It is ABSURD for you to just assume that if the words "CHURCH COUNCIL" are used THEREFORE it is an official, formal, binding meeting of ALL Christians for all time, that it is ECUMENICAL. Friend, my parish had a meeting last week.... it was the CHURCH COUNCIL meeting that we hold on the first Thursday of each month. We decided to begin our monthly potlucks again. Now, you just assume that because it was called a "CHURCH COUNCIL" , ergo this is authoritative declaration for all 2.2 billion Christians until Jesus comes back and so every church has to have a monthly potluck until then. Do you see how inredibly silly you are being? There were NOT Ecumenical Councils of the whole church.... there were AT MOST 3-7 of those and the ones you quote were not among them. They were very obscure, largely impotent, rather forgotten LOCAL meetings of a diocese. And even then, the issue was NOT what is and is not canonical but what may and may not be included in the Lectionary in that region. A whole different enchilada, an ENTIRELY different issue. There's a good reason why NONE of the Orthodox churches paid ANY attention to these obscure, powerless, regional meetings.... had they been councils of the whole church, the lectionary of the Syrian Orthodox Church would be the same as that of the Roman Catholic Church, and it's not and it's never been. These were tiny, LOCAL, powerless meetings.... long forgotten.... but in the Reformation, the RCC tried to suggest it itself (alone, uniquely, individually) had always agreed with it itself along on this, and they discovered those 3 little meetings of it itself.



.

I don’t remember you quoting the meeting where all Christians declared these books should not belong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

This would be entirely irrelevant, even if it were true.

NOWHERE in the NT is there ANY MENTION of a book you label as "Apocrypha." That's simply an outright lie; NO such book is mentioned, there is NO such book reference in the NT. Do a word search of the NT and this will PROVE it.

Now, EVENTS mentioned in non-canonical books MIGHT be mentioned in canonical books, but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. History is history, that it might be mentioned in a book doesn't ergo make that book canonical Scripture. THINK, my brother.

You can hold that ANY words are canonical Scripture...... but to insist that CHRISTIANITY has declared so (in a formal, official manner) you need to reference the official, authoritative PAN-CHRISTIAN meeting that specially STATED so, listed them and called them CANONICAL SCRIPTURE. Not some denominational meeting, not some local meeting, not some decision about the lectionary.




.

I was responding to someone who said that the Apocryphal books are not alluded to in the New Testament. That is not true. They are alluded to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

I don’t remember you quoting the meeting where all Christians declared these books should not belong.

Irrelevant until you quote the binding, authoritative meeting where all Christians declared anything as canonical. Until you do that.... until you establish what books are "IN" we can't discuss any being taken "OUT."


.

 

[Josiah]

I was responding to someone who said that the Apocryphal books are not alluded to in the New Testament. That is not true. They are alluded to.

False.

Perhaps EVENTS which some books mention may be alluded to .... perhaps.... but obviously, undeniably, that's entirely different than some BOOK that mentions such being alluded to. You know that. We all do.



.

 

[RichWh1]

The books that were not included in the Hebrew Tenach were removed. The logic: if the Hebrew Bible does not contain these writings then they didn’t belong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

The books that were not included in the Hebrew Tenach were removed. The logic: if the Hebrew Bible does not contain these writings then they didn’t belong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is exactly right. Those books are missing from the modern-day Hebrew Masoretic text which the Jewish people use. The question is, were any of them in the original Hebrew.

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.

But at some point in time, Protestants decided to agree with the unbelieving Jews and take those books out. I’m wondering what year it was when this occurred.

I know it was before the 1560 Geneva Bible was printed. So it had to be before that. But I don’t think it was before the 1400’s. So I’m not exactly sure what year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

False.

Perhaps EVENTS which some books mention may be alluded to .... perhaps.... but obviously, undeniably, that's entirely different than some BOOK that mentions such being alluded to. You know that. We all do.
.

That’s a ridiculous thing to say.

You’re basically saying that when Hebrews 11 mentions the walls of Jericho falling down, it’s not actually referencing the book of Joshua; it’s just referencing the events that Joshua records. Therefore the book is not being alluded to, just the event.

Seriously? These are word games that you’re playing. And I’m not interested in your games. Go annoy someone else with your semantics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

The question is, were any of them in the original Hebrew.

That indeed is the question.

The early church believed that the original Jewish Bible contained those books,

Cite those church fathers who make that claim with primary sources.

which is why the Septuagint contained them

Provide manuscript evidence to support that claim.

witch is why the early church accepted them and declared them to be scripture in the 380’s and 390’s AD.

Cite those church fathers who make that claim with primary sources.

But at some point in time, Protestants decided to agree with the unbelieving Jews and take those books out. I’m wondering what year it was when this occurred.

I know it was before the 1560 Geneva Bible was printed. So it had to be before that. But I don’t think it was before the 1400’s. So I’m not exactly sure what year.

Another claims for which you have zero evidence.


As you pointed out "The question is were any of them in the original Hebrew."

You have made these kinds of claims many many times. So where is the manuscript evidence, the primary sources, objective evidence?

 

[Origen]

But at some point in time, Protestants decided to agree with the unbelieving Jews and take those books out. I’m wondering what year it was when this occurred.

I know it was before the 1560 Geneva Bible was printed. So it had to be before that. But I don’t think it was before the 1400’s. So I’m not exactly sure what year.

I decided to help you out on this one and it was very easy to do.


Here is a list of all the English translation from Wycliffe to the KJV and all of them have the Apocrypha.

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.


(1) Martin Luther's (1534) translation is also part of the list.

(2) Tyndale's version is not part of the list because he died before he finished.

But at some point in time, Protestants decided to agree with the unbelieving Jews and take those books out. I’m wondering what year it was when this occurred.

Wonder no more because it never happens. No group of protestants even got together and agreed to follow the unbelieving Jews. Such a claim is pure nonsense and there is zero evidence to support it.

 

[Origen]

The council of Trent in 1546 is NOT the first time the Catholics declared these books to be holy scripture.

That source never claimed it was the first time.

The first time there were church councils officially declaring them to be holy, divine scripture was in multiple early church councils in the 4th century, namely the councils of Rome,

Again, the historical evidence for the Decree of Gelasius does not support its authenticity.

Hippo, and Carthage in the 380’s and 390’s, more than a thousand years before the council of Trent.

Hippo and Carthage changed nothing. Long after those synods\councils (in fact right up to the time of Trent) many did not accept them as canonical.

Every Greek and Latin translation found that the early church used contained these books.

That some Bibles did contain at least some of those books proves nothing. Many within the church did read and used the book of the Apocrypha without believing they were canonical.

Plus there’s hundreds of quotations from early church fathers quoting these books as scripture.

And there are examples of early church fathers quoting these books not as scripture. The fact is some church fathers believed them to be canonical and others did not.

Jerome traveled to Bethlehem and claimed the Jewish rabbis had Hebrew copies of 1 Maccabees that they were hiding.

Where exactly does Jerome claim the rabbis were hiding Hebrew copies? Please provide a primary source.

 

[NathanH83]

That indeed is the question.


Cite those church fathers who make that claim with primary sources.


Provide manuscript evidence to support that claim.


Cite those church fathers who make that claim with primary sources.


Another claims for which you have zero evidence.


As you pointed out "The question is were any of them in the original Hebrew."

You have made these kinds of claims many many times. So where is the manuscript evidence, the primary sources, objective evidence?

Ironic how you demand I answer all of your questions when you refuse to answer any of mine.
Since you refuse to answer anything I ask, then I’m not going to answer anything you ask.

You demand that I show evidence that the Jews accepted those books before the time of Christ, but you provide zero evidence that the Jews rejected them before the time of Christ. And when I question you about it, you throw up a lame excuse that you never made that claim.
So, you’re not worth talking to.

People have done research on the Greek Septuagint, and found that out of the 300 or so New Testament quotations of the Old Testament, 90% if the time the New Testament authors side with the Greek Septuagint over the Hebrew Masoretic text. That should cause any intellectually honest person to suspect that the Jews added or removed things from these verses in their Hebrew text, which is precisely what many early church fathers claimed. Even basic math shows this to be the case in many instances.

If that doesn’t cause you to at least suspect that the Jews also removed certain books that the Septuagint had contained back before the time of Christ, then I’d say that you’re not thinking critically, but just hiding behind the mask of “I never made that claim”. Your excuse is nothing more than closed-mindedness rather than the willingness to think rationally and come to the most logical conclusion.

And yes, there are Jewish rabbis who quoted Sirach as scripture in 3 places in the Talmud before the time of Christ. But since you’re not worth the time or effort, I’m not going to bother providing you with the reference for that, since your only intention is to throw it back in my face. So you can go search that one out on your own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

I decided to help you out on this one and it was very easy to do.


Here is a list of all the English translation from Wycliffe to the KJV and all of them have the Apocrypha.

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.


(1) Martin Luther's (1534) translation is also part of the list.

(2) Tyndale's version is not part of the list because he died before he finished.


Wonder no more because it never happens. No group of protestants even got together and agreed follow the unbelieving Jews. Such a claim is pure nonsense and there is zero evidence to support it.

Protestants took those books out of the main body of text and set them aside in the Apocryphal section. Before the Protestant Reformation, those books were in the main body of text, not in the Apocryphal section. So yes, it did happen at some point in time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mailmandan]

So many false claims here.

The council of Trent in 1546 is NOT the first time the Catholics declared these books to be holy scripture. The first time there were church councils officially declaring them to be holy, divine scripture was in multiple early church councils in the 4th century, namely the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the 380’s and 390’s, more than a thousand years before the council of Trent.

Also, the Bibles used by the early church during the first 400 years DID contain these books. Every Greek and Latin translation found that the early church used contained these books. Plus there’s hundreds of quotations from early church fathers quoting these books as scripture.

The claim that none of them were in Hebrew is false. There is much evidence 1 Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew. Jerome traveled to Bethlehem and claimed the Jewish rabbis had Hebrew copies of 1 Maccabees that they were hiding. Tobit was found in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sirach claims in the intro that it was originally in Hebrew, but translated into Greek. Sirach was found in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

2 Maccabees has no Hebrew original, since it was addressed to the Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt, and thus it was written in the language that they could understand. The same thing is true of many New Testament books. So what’s the problem with that? Certainly we’re not going to rip out the New Testament.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Apocrypha is not inspired scripture. Period.

The Apocrphya are not canonical

www.justforcatholics.org

The apocrypha contradicts Scripture

www.justforcatholics.org

St Jerome and the Canon

www.justforcatholics.org

Are the Apocrypha Quoted in the New Testament?

www.justforcatholics.org

 

[Origen]

Ironic how you demand I answer all of your questions when you refuse to answer any of mine.

I am not demanding anything. Either you have the sources\evidence or you don't. I already know the answer to that question.

Since you refuse to answer anything I ask, then I’m not going to answer anything you ask.

Got it. In other words you don't have any primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims.

You demand that I show evidence that the Jews accepted those books before the time of Christ, but you provide zero evidence that the Jews rejected them before the time of Christ.

Again I demand nothing. Either you have the sources\evidence or you don't. You have the burden to support your claim.

And when I question you about it, you throw up a lame excuse that you never made that claim.

I didn't. I find no reason to support a claim I never made. That makes zero sense. Besides, this is just a diversionary tactic on your part because you cannot provide primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims.

So, you’re not worth talking to.

Translation, you have zero primary sources and no manuscript evidence to support any of your claims.

People have done research on the Greek Septuagint, and found that out of the 300 or so New Testament quotations of the Old Testament, 90% if the time the New Testament authors side with the Greek Septuagint over the Hebrew Masoretic text.

That does not support your claims.

That should cause any intellectually honest person to suspect that the Jews added or removed things from these verses in their Hebrew text, which is precisely what many early church fathers claimed.

Still no support for your claims.

If that doesn’t cause you to at least suspect that the Jews also removed certain books that the Septuagint had contained back before the time of Christ,

Pure speculation, zero objective evidence.

And yes, there are Jewish rabbis who quoted Sirach as scripture in 3 places in the Talmud before the time of Christ.

But never as Scripture and that in way supports your claim concerning the church fathers or it being part of the LXX. Only primary sources and manuscript evidence can do that.

But since you’re not worth the time or effort, I’m not going to bother providing you with the reference for that,

Already know.

 

[Origen]

Protestants took those books out of the main body of text and set them aside in the Apocryphal section.

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?"

Before the Protestant Reformation, those books were in the main body of text, not in the Apocryphal section.

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.

 

[NathanH83]

The Apocrypha is not inspired scripture. Period.

The Apocrphya are not canonical

www.justforcatholics.org

The apocrypha contradicts Scripture

www.justforcatholics.org

St Jerome and the Canon

www.justforcatholics.org

Are the Apocrypha Quoted in the New Testament?

www.justforcatholics.org

You say it’s not inspired scripture.
But 3 early church councils in the 4th century declared that these books are divine, canonical scripture.

Who do I believe?

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.

Do you have the authority to make that decision for all of Christianity? Should all of the Christians who accept these books be required to take them out of their Bibles because YOU said so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk