Why do Catholic have 73 books?

Answer 1

The Bible (not the Catholic Book) has fewer books because it only contains the books that are referred to as "homologumena", which literally means 'to speak the same', these book are accepted by all that they are God inspired scriptures; and "antilegomena", which literally means, 'to speak against'. Theses books were questioned but accepted in to the canon.

The Catholic Bible has more books because in addition it contains books that are referred to as the "Apocrypha" and the "Pseudipigrahpa". The first of these literally means, 'hidden'. These are books that were questioned and rejected as a part of the canon. The latter of the two literally means, 'false writing', and these books are rejected by all.

I cannot remember if the Pseudipigrahpa is a part of the Catholic Bible or not, but I know that the Apocrypha is.

.

Catholic AnswerSorry, the above answer was made up by protestants to justify their truncated Bible, the Apocrypha contains all kinds of books that are not in the Bible, neither in the Bible used by the Church for twenty centuries, nor the one that the protestants made up. This is a redefintion of terms that protestants have done for centuries to justify what M. Luther did:

.

Because when Martin Luther, may he rest in peace, left the Catholic Church to found his own religion, he had nothing to found it on as Our Blessed Lord founded the Catholic Church, and said that there would only be ONE Church, and that He would be with it until the end of the world. Having nowhere to turn to justify himself, he decided to base a religion solely on the Bible, neglecting to mention to people that the Catholic Church had written the New Testament in the first two centuries, decided which books would comprise it, in the fourth and fifth centuries, and managed to preserve it for fifteen centuries. So, Martin Luther made up his own Bible by throwing books out of the Bible that supported the Church's teachings. Other protestants objected at him throwing books out of the New Testament, but they have been unable to explain how you can be saved by "faith alone" when the only time those two words appear together in the New Testament is in the letter of St. James with that troublesome word NOT in front of them (M. Luther wanted to throw out St. James as well, surprised?) St. James 2:24 "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only. There are dozens of examples in both the New and Old Testaments, is it any wonder the protestants threw those books out of the Bible?

.

The reason given is that the Hebrew Bible did not contain them, but this does not hold up to the facts. Even the so called Council of Jamnia can not be historically proven. The main reasons are 1) they contain clear support for Catholic doctrines that have been rejected by the "reformers", and they are supported by the Catholic Church. For an exhaustive, scholarly, completely documented coverage of the whole story, read Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible, by Gary G. Michuta

from A Catholic Dictionary, edited by Donald Attwater, Second edition, revised 1957

Apocrypha

Books erroneously held to be inspired and to be included in the canon of Scripture, but rejected as such by the Church, such as III and IV Esdras, III and IV Maccabees, Prayer of Manasses, 3rd Epistle to the Corinthians, and the Gospel of James. Books style "apocrypha" in Protestant editions of the Bible are not necessarily such in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Deutero-Canonical books

Those books of the O.T. whose place in the canon was not admitted till after that of the other books. They are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Machabees, ver. 4 of chapt. X to the end of Esther, and Daniel, ver. 24 of chap. Iii to ver 3 of chap 8v and chaps. Xiii and xiv. Their authority is equal with that of the other books of the bible and is so admitted by all the Eastern dissident churches, except that Greek and Russian Orthodox theologians have now for some time been questioning it. Protestants have always rejected them because they are not included in the Hebrew Bible of the Jews.

Canon of Scripture

Is the list of inspire books of the Old and New Testaments. Inclusion in the canon does not confer anything to the internal character of a book, but is only the Church's teaching of the fact of its antecedent inspiration. The N.T. canon is the same as that at present commonly received among non-Catholic Christians; the O.T. canon contains in addition the deutero-canonical books (see above). These books and fragments are usually called Deuterocanoica, or of the second canon, not because their inspiration is in any way different from that of the others, but because the inspiration of the books at present in the Jewish Bible was definitely proclaimed by the Jewish authorities previous to Christ, whereas the inspiration of the Deuterocanonica, tentatively held but later rejected by the Jews, was definitely proclaimed in the Christian dispensation. The Protestant reformers, denying the infallibility of The Church, returned to the Jewish canon; the Council of Trent reaffirmed acceptance of the Christian one. Doubts expressed by individuals in certain places and periods about the canonical status of Hebrews, Apocalypse (Revelation) and some canonical epistles in the N.T. and the Deuterocanonica in the O.T., were thus declared incompatible with Catholic faith.

from Catholicism and Fundamentalism - The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" by Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1988

William G. Most discussing comments made in 1910 by Gerald Birney Smith, professor at the University of Chicago and speaker at that year's Baptist Congress...

Most notes that "what Professor Smith demonstrates is that for a Protestant there simply is no way to know which books are inspired. That means, in practice, that a Protestant, if he is logical should not appeal to Scripture to prove anything; he ha no sure mans of knowing which books are part of Scripture (William G. Most, Free from All Error, Libertyville, Ill.: Franciscan Marytown Press, 1985, 9-11)

One consequence of this inability to ascertain the canon has been that the Protestant Bible is an incomplete Bible, Missing are the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees, as well as sections of Ester and Daniel. These are known to Catholics as the deutero-canonical works. They are just as much a part of the Bible as the rest of the Old Testament, the proto-canonical books. ...

However easy it may have been for the Reformers to say that some books are inspired and thus in the canon, while others are not, they in fact had no solid grounds for making such determinations. Ultimately, an infallible authority is needed if we are to know what belongs in the Bible and what does not. Without such an authority, we are left to our own prejudices, and we cannot tell if our prejudices lead us in the right direction.

The advantages of the Catholic approach to proving inspiration are two. First, the inspiration is really proved, not just "felt". Second, the main fact behind the proof - the fact of an infallible, teaching Church - leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:31): How is one to know what interpretations are right? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that establishes its inspiration, is the authority set up by Christ to interpret his word.

from A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong; Sophia Institute Press, 2003

For further related reading, see the author's website (listed below)

They were included in the Septuagint, which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament Scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, and Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the East (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Gregory Nazianzen) recognized some distinction, but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

The Church councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the West and most of the East. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

Since these councils also finalized the sixty-six canonical books that all Christians accept, it is quit arbitrary for Protestants selectively to delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament is understood.

Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.

The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus ©. 450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.

The practice of collecting the deuterocanonical books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha".

Protestants, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles, due to their clear teaching of doctrines that had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tob. 12:12; 2 Mac. 12:39-45; cf. 1 Cor. 15:29), the intercession of dead saints (2 Mac. 15:14; cf. Rev. 6:9-10), and the intermediary intercession of angels (Tob. 12:12, 15; cf. Rev. 5: 8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other reformers.

Answer 2

Protestant bibles reject the books which are not found in the "Palestinian Canon" of the Old Testament. This was the scriptures generally used in Palestine in the centuries before Christ. Another canon, the "Alexandrian Canon" was used in Jewish communities in other parts of the world, namely Alexandria in Egypt, where the Old Testament had been translated into Greek. This canon included books not found in the Palestinian Canon which were 'missing'. Thus, these books were only found in Greek. Due to sociological and perhaps political reasons, Palestinian Jews generally rejected the Alexandrian Canon in favor of the Hebrew Canon. This was not an alarming situation, as there was not a real hard-and-fast agreement among various populations of Jews as to what was Sacred Scripture and what was not.

The [Catholic] Church accepted the Alexandrian canon and, indeed, the New Testament makes direct and indirect references to the books which are missing from the Hebrew canon and it even repeats a number of editorial variations which are found in the Alexandrian Canon, but not the Palestinian Canon. While there was some mushiness in the Christian Canon through the centuries, it was pretty much in place by agreement of the bishops of the Church at council on the eve of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, the canon of Scripture remained relatively unquestioned until the Protestant Reformation when reformers rejected the 'extra' books of the Alexandrian Canon.

Interestingly, some modern Protestant Communities now accept the 'deuterocanonical' ('second canon') books in worship and study, while rejecting them for the basis of theology and doctrine. (The 'troublesome teaching' on purgatory and praying for the dead, for instance, can be found in deuterocanonical book of II Maccabees.)

The simple explanation of the basis for the rejection of the deuterocanonical books by some groups has been that there were no authentic Hebrew or Aramaic sources of the books in the Alexandrian Canon which are only found in Greek. Interestingly with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, all of the deuterocanonical books, except Esther, now have verified sources in the ancient languages, which would undermine this argument.

The Catholic Church retains to itself, as the authentic and historical Church of Christianity, the authority to define and interpret Sacred Scripture. Thus, it is the Church's job to discern, through the gifts and protection of the Holy Spirit, what books are of divine origin and what books must be rejected. Through the centuries the Church has made these decisions corporately and without objection from dissenters. That is why we do not have in the New Testament the Letters of Clement, as theologically rich and as authentic to the tradition as they may be. That is also why 'lost' Gospels and other non-biblical texts such as those which have been featured in the popular media and various documentaries are not accepted.

Yet, according to Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter in the year 367 (Bishop of Alexandria), there are only 27 books of the New Testament as scripture.

Since, however, we have spoken of the heretics as dead but of ourselves as possessors of the divine writings unto salvation, and since I am afraid that -- as Paul has written to the Corinthians [2 Cor. 11:3] -- some guileless persons may be led astray from their purity and holiness by the craftiness of certain men and begin thereafter to pay attention to other books, the so-called apocryphal writings, being deceived by their possession of the same names as the genuine books, I therefore exhort you to patience when, out of regard to the Church's need and benefit, I mention in my letter matters with which you are acquainted. It being my intention to mention these matters, I shall, for the commendation of my venture, follow the example of the evangelist Luke and say [cf. Luke 1:1-4]: Since some have taken in hand to set in order for themselves the so-called apocrypha and to mingle them with the God-inspired scripture, concerning which we have attained to a sure persuasion, according to what the original eye-witness and ministers of the word have delivered unto our fathers, I also, having been urged by true brethren and having investigated the matter from the beginning, have decided to set forth in order the writings that have been put in the canon, that have been handed down and confirmed as divine, in order that every one who has been led astray may condemn his seducers, and that every one who has remained stainless may rejoice, being again reminded of that.

Athanasius now in the first place enumerates the scriptures of the Old Testament. He then proceeds:

Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John

These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them...

But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.

Protestant Answer:

Protestants rejects these books for a number of reasons.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Jerome was hesitant to include most of the apocryphal books in the canon, due to numerous errors. Even after he did concede to include them (in the fourth century), they were not decreed to be inspired scripture until April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent. So for 1100 years, they were part of the canon, but not officially scripture. The reason for this is again, because of the numerous errors. It appears they were ultimately accepted at Trent, because without doing so, the Catholic Church had no scripture upon which to base the doctrine of purgatory, invocation and intercession of the saints, the worship of angels, the redemption of souls after death, etc. In fact, if you'll look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, you'll find discussion of "problems" or "errors" with most of the apocryphal books.

Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known.The Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture.The books themselves don't claim inspiration.There's no"Thus saith the Lord"'s .Although the N.T has 263 direct quotes from and 370 allusions to the O.T,there's not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha.It was at Trent,Ap.8th1546,that the pope declared tradition+the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative.

Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10).Ecc3:3 states that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha.

Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says "As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon." (See the intro. to the Vulgate in his own hand.)Gregory the Great,in his commentaries on Job,(Lib.XIX.C16) expressly writes that the books of Mac, isn't canonical,as well as the rest.Josephus agrees.

Again, at Trent, the roman catholic organisation mearly defined what IT would use as the Bible. There were in fact, many Bibles in circulation way before the rcc claimed to have given us the Bible ( which is a historic and Biblical lie )

Versions of the NT in other languages available early in Christianity: Peshitta Version AD 150 The Italic Bible AD 157 The Waldensian AD 120 & onwards Gallic Bible (Southern France) AD177 Gothic Bible AD 330-350 Old Syriac Bible AD 400 Armenian Bible AD 400 (There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.) Palestinian Syriac AD 450

326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.

315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.

270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.

185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.

165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.

160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.

135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.

100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.

I hope this helps.

Roman Catholic AnswerIt was Protestantism that removed these "deuterocanonical" books from the Bible, many centuries later. And contrary to the myth, the early Church did indeed accept these books as Scripture.

The seven disputed books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include an additional six chapters (107 verses) in Esther and three chapters (174 verses) in Daniel.

According to major Protestant scholars and historians, in the first four centuries Church leaders (e.g. St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, St. Irenaeus) generally recognized these seven books as canonical and scriptural, following the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, following the Council of Rome (382), and general consensus, finalized the New Testament canon while also including the deutercanon, in lists that were identical to that of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

There's a scholarly consensus that this canon was pretty much accepted from the fourth century to the sixteenth, and indeed, the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament: the Codes Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus (c. 450) include the (unseparated) deuterocanonical books. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran did not contain Esther, but did contain Tobit.

According to Douglas and Geisler, Jamnia (first century Jewish council) was not an authoritative council, but simply a gathering of scholars, and similar events occurred afterward. In fact, at Jamnia the canonicity of books such as Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon was also disputed. Since both Protestants and Catholics accept these books today, this shows that Jamnia did not "settle" anything. The Jews were still arguing about the canonicity of the books mentioned earlier and also Proverbs into the early second century.

And St. Jerome's sometimes critical views on these books are not a clear-cut as Protestants often make them out to be. In his Apology Against Rufinus (402) for example, he wrote:

When I repeat what the Jews say against the story of Susanna and the the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us (Apology Against Rufinus, book II, 33)

Significantly, St. Jerome included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate, his Latin translation of the Bible, (And he defended the inspiration of Judith in a preface to it.) All in all, there is no clear evidence that St. Jerome rejected these seven books, and much to suggest that he accepted them as inspired Scripture, as the Catholic Church does today. But St. Jerome (like any Church father) does not have the final authority in the Church. He's not infallible. The historical evidence, all things considered, strongly supports the Catholic belief that these books are inspired and thus indeed part of Holy Scripture

from The One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong; Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2007

Answer 3

The question should be why do the Protestant Bibles only have 66 books. The Catholic Church for 1500 years considered the Apocryphal books as canonical. It was not until Martin Luther decided to go on his rant that a number of books were removed from The Bible that did not fit in with his own theology. He really wanted to also dump the Epistle of St. James but thought better. Instead, he chose to just ignore it. By dumping the Apocrypha Luther could then deny the existence of Purgatory as not being Biblical. What Luther could not throw out, he revised passages ever so slightly to change their meanings to suit is personal needs.

Answer 4

The Catholic Biblical Canon has seven extra books because Martin Luther felt that Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees were not inspired Scripture despite their usage by the Greek Jews and the Church up until Luther.

Answer 5

Bibles that list Lamentations as part of Jeremiah have 72 books in them. Bibles that list Lamentations as a separate book have 73 in them.

Answer 6

We protestants have only 66 books in the bible.

Answer 7

The Protestant Bible contains the 27 books of the New Testament while the Hebrew only has the 39 books in the Old Testament.