The Missing Books of the Bible
FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
Last week, my friend who is a Baptist was visiting and
came with me to Mass. The first reading was from the second Book of Maccabees. She had never heard of that book. I said,
"It is in the Bible." She said, "It is not in my Bible." Is
there a difference?
Yes,
there is a difference between Catholic and Protestant editions of the Bible.
However, to appreciate this question and its answer, one must first remember
that almighty God never handed anyone a complete Bible and said, "Here it
is." Rather, over the centuries of salvation history, the Holy Spirit
inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture to write down God's revelation to us.
As time went on, the Church compiled these books to form a Canon — an authoritative
set of Sacred Scripture — and declared it "God's Word."
The books of
the Old Testament were written probably between 1000 and 100 BC, and are
usually distinguished as four sets: The Law (or Torah, our first five books of
the Old Testament), the Historical Books, the Prophets, and the Writings. (The
books of I & II Maccabees belong to the
historical set, being written between 150 - 100 BC.) Even in the New Testament
itself, we find references to the reading of the Law and the Prophets in
synagogue services (e.g. Luke 4:16-19, Acts 13:15). After the Fall of Jerusalem
in AD 70, the Jewish rabbis convened the Council of Jamnia
(90-100), at which time they established what books would be considered their
Sacred Scripture.
At this time,
some controversy still existed over what are called the seven "deuterocanonical books" — Tobit,
Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees — although they had been incorporated in their
entirety or at least partially in versions of the Septuagint, the official Greek
translation of the Old Testament (c. 100 BC). Part of the reason for the
controversy was because these were the latest writings of the Old Testament and
were written in Greek rather than Hebrew; the other books of the Old Testament
— the "protocanonical books"-- were older
and originally written in Hebrew. Modern scholars note that Jamnia
did not exclude any books definitively; a rigid fixing of the Jewish canon does
not occur until at least 100 years later, and even
then other books-- including the deuterocanonical
books-- were read and honored.
Many Scripture
scholars, however, have no doubt that the apostolic Church accepted the deuterocanonical books as part of its canon of Sacred
Scriptures. For instance, Origen (d. 245) affirmed the use of these books among
Christians even though some of the Jewish leaders did not officially accept
them.
Meanwhile, the
writing of the New Testament books occurred between the time of our Lord's
death and the end of the first century. (Recent studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls
by some scholars suggest a date of the earliest writings closer to the time of
our Lord's death, whereas much scholarship seems to place the writings between
50 and 100 AD).
After the
legalization of Christianity in 313, we find the Church striving to formalize
what writings of the New Testament were truly considered inspired and authentic
to the teachings of our Lord. St. Athanasius in his Paschal Epistle (367)
presented the complete list of 27 books of the New Testament saying,
"These are the sources of salvation, for the thirsty may drink deeply of
the words to be found here. In these alone is the doctrine of piety recorded.
Let no one add to them or take anything away from them." This list of 27
books along with the 46 books of the Old Testament (including the deuterocanonical ones) was affirmed as the official canon
of Sacred Scripture for the Catholic Church by the synods of Hippo (393),
Carthage I & II (397 and 419). The letter of Pope St. Innocent I in 405
also officially listed these books.
Although some
discussion arose over the inclusion of other books into the Church's canon of
Sacred Scripture after this time, the Council of Florence (1442) definitively
established the official list of 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the New
Testament.
With this
background, we can now address why the Protestant versions of the Bible have
less books than the Catholic versions. In 1534, Martin Luther translated the
Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical
books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach,
Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old
Testament under the title "Apocrypha," declaring, "These are
books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and
good for reading." Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those
of God's work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I
John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline
epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James,
Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament).
Many Church
historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the
"non-canonical books" of the New Testament but refrained from doing
so because of possible political fall-out. Why Luther took this course of
action is hard to say. Some scholars believe Luther wanted to return to the
"primitive faith," and therefore accepted only those Old Testament
books written in Hebrew originally; others speculate he wanted to remove
anything which disagreed with his own theology. Nevertheless, his action had
the permanent consequence of omitting the seven deuterocanonical
books of the Old Testament in Protestant versions of the Bible.
The 39
Articles of Religion (1563) of the Church of England asserted that these deuterocanonical books may be read for "example of
life and instruction of manners," although they should not be used
"to establish any doctrine" (Article VI). Consequently, the King
James Bible (1611) printed the books between the New Testament and Old
Testaments. John Lightfoot (1643) criticized this arrangement because he
thought the "wretched Apocrypha" may be seen as a bridge between the
two. The Westminster Confession (1647) decreed that these books, "not
being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and
therefore are of no authority of the Church of God; nor
to be in any otherwise approved, or made use of than other human
writings."
The British
and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1827 to remove these books from further
publications and labeled these books "apocryphal." However, many
Protestant versions of the Bible today will state, "King James version
with Apocrypha."
The Council of
Trent, reacting to the Protestant Reformers, repeated the canon of Florence in
the Decree on Sacred Books and on Traditions to be Received (1546) and decreed
that these books were to be treated "with equal devotion and
reverence." The Catechism repeats this same list of books and again
affirms the apostolic Tradition of the canon of Sacred Scripture.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Saunders, Rev.
William. "The Missing Books of the Bible." Arlington Catholic Herald.
This article
is reprinted with permission from Arlington Catholic Herald.
THE AUTHOR
|
|
Father William
Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and
pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Sterling, Virginia. The above article is a
"Straight Answers" column he wrote for the Arlington Catholic
Herald. Father Saunders is also the author of Straight
Answers, a book based on 100 of his columns and published by Cathedral
Press in Baltimore.
Copyright ©
2003 Arlington Catholic Herald