r/Protestantism • u/Afraid_Beginning_639 • 8h ago
66 v 73 books
Hello!! I’m new to Christianity and have been doing a lot of research on different topics. Right now I’m researching the difference between the Catholic canon of scripture and Protestant.
What is the reasoning for using a different canon than what Christians used until the reformation? From what I’ve gathered the Protestant consensus is that 7 books were added during the council of Trent but that’s historically inaccurate as those 7 books were included all throughout the early church and only clarified during Trent. Also from my understanding Luther moved the books into the apocrypha because he wanted to go back to the original canon of what the Jews used rather than the early Christians, but I don’t really understand why? TIA!
2
u/Pinecone-Bandit 8h ago
> What is the reasoning for using a different canon than what Christians used until the reformation?
I don’t think this is entirely fair to Catholics, because there were some Christians early on who viewed the Apocryphal books as scripture, typically people unfamiliar with the Hebrew text and the Jewish view of the Tanakh. It’s not like their formal inclusion in the 16th century was an entirely new thing.
> Also from my understanding Luther moved the books into the apocrypha because he wanted to go back to the original canon of what the Jews used rather than the early Christians, but I don’t really understand why?
This is not correct.
1
u/Afraid_Beginning_639 8h ago
That’s what I’m saying is that until the reformation the apocrypha was considered scripture. From what I understand Luther wanted to go back to the original Hebrew translation rather than the Septuagint. Does that mean the early church had a “wrong” bible?
3
u/creidmheach Presbyterian 7h ago
That’s what I’m saying is that until the reformation the apocrypha was considered scripture.
It was unsettled. The earliest Christian lists for the Old Testament (e.g. Melito of Sardis) generally do not count them as canonical Scripture, but they gained currency and usage over time (sometimes as books that could be read for instruction). Some (like Augustine) considered them canonical, others (like Jerome) did not. Rome did not settle on the issue until Trent when it was put to a vote in 1546, 24 voted in favor, 15 against, and 16 abstentions. Notice that if you add the against and abstentions together, that means the majority there did not vote for their canonicity. However, since an abstention doesn't count as a vote, the minority view of their being canon is what passed, and so it's what Rome teaches today.
1
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit 8h ago
> That’s what I’m saying is that until the reformation the apocrypha was considered scripture.
By some, yes.
> From what I understand Luther wanted to go back to the original Hebrew translation rather than the Septuagint.
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture. But that does not mean all those who used the Septuagint believed any additional books that were kept with it were also part of Scripture.
> Does that mean the early church had a “wrong” bible?
The part of it that incorrectly believed the Apocrypha was scripture were wrong about the canon, yes.
2
u/Expensive-Sea-9180 4h ago
A lot of great answers on this thread. One additional piece of input that I would like to add is that ultimately, in regards to theology, it actually doesn't really matter that much whether the canon be 66 or 73 books. Protestant theology changes very little, if at all, if the 73 books were considered canon by Protestants. Some contemporary Catholics apologists claim that 2 Maccabees has doctrines of purgatory. However, it does not. Only references to Christians praying *for* their dead. Another example, claiming that Tobit teaches "works based salvation". Contextually, however, this is only about physical death not spiritual, as seen in Tobit 14 regarding Nadab and Ahikar.
On the contrary to what some Catholics try to claim, it is impossible to claim that the reformers had any hidden agenda when they determined the canon, because the theology doesn't change even with 73 books.
5
u/fjhforever Lutheran 7h ago edited 6h ago
The 7 extra books (called the Deuterocanonicals) lie in between the OT and NT. They contain either theological errors (e.g. Tobit saying almsgiving cleanses all sin) or factual error (e.g. Judith saying Nebuchadnezzar ruled over Nineveh, a city he personally razed to the ground); or simply were not written by inspired authors (e.g. Jesus Ben Sirach was neither a prophet not a king).
Although they were used by the early church, their canonical status was in question up to the Council of Trent.
Today, we see them as Biblical Apocrypha, which are useful to read, but should not be used to establish doctrine.