The Soda Shop Message Boards

So, I was on CC debating with Metal and Christian, and then I find out, for the first time... That you guys have Bibles with fewer books. Huh? (For those of you thinking I'm super naive, all I have to say is!... You're absolutely right.)
Apparently, for a lot of you this old news (Christian was surprised I didn't know) but Metal15 didn't even know there was a book of Tobit.
Now, for those of you who mayn't know, the books that, evidently, aren't in some, (or perhaps most?) Protestant Bibles are the Deuteronomy books. These include Tobit, first and second Maccabees, et cetera.
Also, I didn't know there were shorter versions of the NAB, KJV and company.
So, I guess for those of you who have Bibles like that, it's just a fact of life not to have those books. For me though, it was a shock. I had a vague idea that some Protestants used Bibles without certain books. I had no idea which ones, I certainly didn't think the number was as large as seven! Nor that this was prevalent, but Metal15, IrishTiger, and Christian all use shorter Bibles.
So, I'm very curious. Why do Protestant Bibles have fewer books?
After doing a bit of googling and book peeping, I have my own opinions. But first, what you people have to say? I definitely want to know more about this bewildering situation.

My Bible has Deuteronomy, but it doesn't have first and second Maccabees or Tobit. I went to my aunt and uncle's church, and they read passages out of the book of Wisdom, which I have never seen in any Bible I am familiar with. I seem to recall hearing something about a council of early Christians that decided what books should be in the Bible, but I don't remember any details, or even whether it is true. What books specifically are in the Deuteronomy books?

The books not in the Protestant canon are called the Deuterocanonical books. The books are 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, 1-4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151. Those are the Orthodox Deuterocanonical books. The Eastern Orthodox canon of Scripture has 78 books, the Catholics canon has 71 and the Protestants canon has 66. It was the Council of Hippo in 393 that decided upon the canon of Scripture, the canon that has 78 books.

Edit: Just to clarify, no Protestant denomination uses the Deuterocanonical books

And to clarify, Ecclesiasticus and the epistle of Jeremiah are not the same as Ecclesiastes and Jeremiah? Because I have those in my Bible.

True, they are not the same. Ecclesiasticus is also known as the Wisdom of Sirach. And the Epistle of Jeremiah is the name for a portion of the book of Baruch, the Orthodox canon has it as a standalone book but the Catholic Vulgate simply includes it in Baruch.

Catholics actually have 73 books, Eleventh. 46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament.
Martin Luther removed Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch (which is a Prophetic Book)
Here's a link to some information on the missing books:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... e0134.html

My bad, I must have misread 73 as 71.

Baruch...wasn't he the scribe that wrote a lot of Jeremiah's messages to the king?

Yes, he was Jeremiah's "secretary." But, Baruch is also a Prophetic book.

Okay, so, then. It would seem the Bible was originally longer.

According to my reading, it was Martin Luther who originally decided the Bible could do with fewer books. This seems rather absurd. Suppose some famous theologian today were to print an "improved" version of the Bible that left out a bunch of books. We would all be revolted and ignore him.

Christian said Protestants could just as easily say Catholics added books. How could that be?

The Catholic Church decided which books would be in the Bible from a multitude of possibilities. Then along comes Luther and chops some off. Christian said it was complicated. But either we added books, or Luther chopped them off. Isn't it simple?
And the Catholic Church did put together the Bible, and Martin Luther did eschew them.
Therefor, Protestants aren't using the full book!

The Catholics aren't using all of the books in the Bible either. But more importantly, the Roman Catholics did not decide which books would be in the Bible. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church agreed upon a Biblical canon of 78 books, in 393. The Roman Catholic schism then decided they only wanted 73 books, the Protestants then decided they only wanted 66 books.

Luther wanted to chop more than just the Deuterocanonical books, he wanted to cut James, Jude, and Revelation too. But Luther didn't chop the books, in his translations of the Bible all 73 books are in there but the additional Roman Catholic books get their own section and they are considered questionable. It would be interesting to learn more about why he didn't just cut them. Most Protestant Bibles continued to include these books, the original KJV for example, with the disclaimer, until missionary societies later remove them to make shipping Bible easier, this catches on in Protestant circles and the Deuterocanonical books disappear from Protestant Bibles.

Pardon? I believe that the Synod of Hippo did take place in AD 393 but they approved a canon of 73 books.
Source please, Good Doctor.

I'm trying to understand canon 24: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

*faint* By all that is holy, dost thou think I am St. George to conquer such a dragon as that mountain of text? Also, ah... the adventism term is somewhat of turnoff. Please tell me what section specifically addresses the the idea that the council of Hipo approved 78 books.

The specific is Canon 24, the point though is that it was the Septuagint that was viewed as canon.

New Advent is actually a Catholic Encyclopedia of theology.

I found this one that New Advent site...

"The Catholic New Testament, as defined by the Council of Trent, does not differ, as regards the books contained, from that of all Christian bodies at present. Like the Old Testament, the New has its deuterocanonical books and portions of books, their canonicity having formerly been a subject of some controversy in the Church. These are for the entire books: the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, Jude, and Apocalypse; giving seven in all as the number of the New Testament contested books. The formerly disputed passages are three: the closing section of St. Mark's Gospel, xvi, 9-20 about the apparitions of Christ after the Resurrection; the verses in Luke about the bloody sweat of Jesus (22:43-44); the Pericope Adulteræ, or narrative of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages."

Hope that helps.

Wow! I have never Even heard of those books before. And I am dead. serius. Ok Daddy, time for some questions! =) But I do know about the council a long time ago that decided what books went in, as scripture, and which went out. Were these missing books found in the caves of Qumran, or not?

The books Tobit, Ben Sirach, Baruch 6, and Psalm 151 were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So if you know about the council that decided what books went into Scripture, why do you think modern Protestant Bibles are missing some of them?

Actually I now why some of them are missing. James almost didn't make it into the Protestant Bible actually. Some of them are of doubtful origins or lack the authority of some great Biblical person etc. Even non-Christian groups consider the Protestant Bible more accurate than the other Bible because of some thing in the books that were left out. I personally haven't studied that much though.

Can you share some links to these non-Christian groups that consider the Protestant Bible more accurate?