Why is the Catholic OT different that our OT?

[Dallas]

One thing that confuses me the most about the Catholic/Protestant difference is the Old Testament. From what I understand, the Bible we use (Protestants), it doesn't have some books and also has books that the Catholic Bible doesn't have. I recall reading how the Bible was made up through the council of Nicaea which determined which books would be put into the Bible. Is this the same as the Catholic Bible? Or am I getting my idea switched around? Just curious one what separated the Bibles.

[PaulSacramento]

The catholic OT has books that the protestant one doesn't:
Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees

Remember, the biblical canon was a collection of Authoritative books, it was NOT what made them authoritative, they already were viewed as such.
Canonization did NOT make them authoritative.

[Byblos]

The catholic OT has books that the protestant one doesn't:
Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees

Remember, the biblical canon was a collection of Authoritative books, it was NOT what made them authoritative, they already were viewed as such.
Canonization did NOT make them authoritative.

This is going to spark yet another debate but if canonization did not make them authoritative because they were already viewed as such, then it stands to reason that whoever viewed them as such is the one (or ones) that made them authoritative. So who was that? Or is it an appeal to ad populum?

In any case, from the Catholic perspective please read the following link on The Canon of the Old Testament.

[PaulSacramento]

The catholic OT has books that the protestant one doesn't:
Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees

Remember, the biblical canon was a collection of Authoritative books, it was NOT what made them authoritative, they already were viewed as such.
Canonization did NOT make them authoritative.

This is going to spark yet another debate but if canonization did not make them authoritative because they were already viewed as such, then it stands to reason that whoever viewed them as such is the one (or ones) that made them authoritative. So who was that? Or is it an appeal to ad populum?

In any case, from the Catholic perspective please read the following link on The Canon of the Old Testament.

The bible canon is a collection of authoritative books, not an authoritative collection of books.
They were authoritative because they were viewed as such over the centuries, not just be a selected few.
This is why different "regions" had different Canons.

[Byblos]

The bible canon is a collection of authoritative books, not an authoritative collection of books.

And my question is how did they come to be authoritative.

They were authoritative because they were viewed as such over the centuries, not just be a selected few.

So you are appealing to ad populum for authority then.

This is why different "regions" had different Canons.

So authoritative is not only based on popular (albeit historical) opinion, it is also subjective by region? Not much authority in that.

[PaulSacramento]

The bible canon is a collection of authoritative books, not an authoritative collection of books.

And my question is how did they come to be authoritative.

They were authoritative because they were viewed as such over the centuries, not just be a selected few.

So you are appealing to ad populum for authority then.

This is why different "regions" had different Canons.

So authoritative is not only based on popular (albeit historical) opinion, it is also subjective by region? Not much authority in that.

None of that changes that is how it was.
Whether we agree with that process or not, it was what it was.

Look at the codex Sinaiticus VS the Vaticanus or the canon of the eastern orthodox church or the Ethiopian church.

[Byblos]

None of that changes that is how it was.
Whether we agree with that process or not, it was what it was.

So we all ought to put blinders on and accept the reality that that's how it always was and stop asking question. Okay, got it.

Look at the codex Sinaiticus VS the Vaticanus or the canon of the eastern orthodox church or the Ethiopian church.

I am well aware of the differences, it there weren't any we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[PaulSacramento]

None of that changes that is how it was.
Whether we agree with that process or not, it was what it was.

So we all ought to put blinders on and accept the reality that that's how it always was and stop asking question. Okay, got it.

Look at the codex Sinaiticus VS the Vaticanus or the canon of the eastern orthodox church or the Ethiopian church.

I am well aware of the differences, it there weren't any we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not sure why the "tone" or am I reading a "tone" where there isn't one?
I stand by my statement, regardless of what we THINK about the process, it was what it was and there is nothing we can do about it now.
There was a certain criteria that the early church fathers used in viewing books, gospels and letters as authoritative, but by the time the canon was made, that process had ALREADY made the authoritative books authoritative.
That different regions had SOME different books is understandable base don what they had to work with.

No one group can or should call their canon "more authoritative" than an other.

[Byblos]

None of that changes that is how it was.
Whether we agree with that process or not, it was what it was.

So we all ought to put blinders on and accept the reality that that's how it always was and stop asking question. Okay, got it.

Look at the codex Sinaiticus VS the Vaticanus or the canon of the eastern orthodox church or the Ethiopian church.

I am well aware of the differences, it there weren't any we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not sure why the "tone" or am I reading a "tone" where there isn't one?

Not a tone Paul, only an ever-so-slight hint of sarcasm .

I stand by my statement, regardless of what we THINK about the process, it was what it was and there is nothing we can do about it now.

What we can do is look at the process and see if it makes sense in answering the OP's question, and that is what we are attempting to do.

There was a certain criteria that the early church fathers used in viewing books, gospels and letters as authoritative, but by the time the canon was made, that process had ALREADY made the authoritative books authoritative.
That different regions had SOME different books is understandable base don what they had to work with.

You're right, it doesn't matter what happened after the books were recognized as authoritative (whether or not that came about before or after formal canonization is irrelevant). This is why my question is rather centered around these criteria by which the books became authoritative as opposed to the canonization process.

No one group can or should call their canon "more authoritative" than an other.

Surely you can see how that presents a huge problem Paul as we would have no basis by which we can definitively state which books are inspired and which aren't. Never mind the difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles which are mainly concerned with the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books of the OT. Now you've opened up the possibility for contention in the NT books as well. There are some who would consider the gospel of Thomas or the newly discover gospel of Barnabas as part of the canon and therefore inspired. What would you say to them?

[jlay]

Well, I think you are both wrong.

And my question is how did they come to be authoritative

By being inspired of God. How they came to be "recognized" as authoritative is another issue.
Byb, it often seems that the RCC wants to have their cake and eat it too. For example, they would say the Apocrypha were not 'made' canon in 1524, but were simply recognized for how they were always viewed by the church. That phrasing is repeated often regarding various issues. Until it comes to the original 'canon.' Then we have to bow to the RCC, because without them, God just couldn't pull off the collective work we call the Bible today.

PaulSacramento wrote: They were authoritative because they were viewed as such over the centuries, not just be a selected few.

They were authoritative, period. They aren't authoritative because of how they are viewed. If the RCC decided to throw out the whole thing, it wouldn't change what was and is authoritative or genuine scripture. They were viewed as authoritative much earlier than they were 'officially' recognized as such. Even Peter alludes to the authority of Paul's writings. The reality is they didn't become authoritative when Peter said so, but when Paul penned them. Well even before if you want to pick nits.

[Byblos]

They were authoritative, period.

Well okey dokey then. Considering scripture doesn't contain a table of contents, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it.

[jlay]

Byb,

Once again you miss the point.

You said,

And my question is how did they come to be authoritative

They are authoritative because they are God inspired scripture.
Now, if you want to ask, when were they recognized as authoritative, then you have a different discussion. Or, if you want to ask, when were they all compiled into a nice tidy package, you have a different discussion.

-But they are certainly not authoritative because some men met and voted.

[Byblos]

Byb,

Once again you miss the point.

You said,

And my question is how did they come to be authoritative

They are authoritative because they are God inspired scripture.
Now, if you want to ask, when were they recognized as authoritative, then you have a different discussion. Or, if you want to ask, when were they all compiled into a nice tidy package, you have a different discussion.

-But they are certainly not authoritative because some men met and voted.

You make it sound like I believe mere men voted and came up with the list of books. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact that would be YOUR argument as you have no link whatsoever to inerrant guidance. All you could do is make an assertion that the books are authoritative. Well how do you know that? That is why you're still missing the bigger point. God didn't give us a list of books for us to tell which ones are inspired and which aren't. It took men to recognize which books are indeed authoritative. Now either these men were guided by God into recognizing the differences, or they were left to their own devices. I am in the camp of the former.

[jlay]

You make it sound like I believe mere men voted and came up with the list of books. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact that would be YOUR argument as you have no link whatsoever to inerrant guidance. All you could do is make an assertion that the books are authoritative. Well how do you know that? That is why you're still missing the bigger point. God didn't give us a list of books for us to tell which ones are inspired and which aren't. It took men to recognize which books are indeed authoritative. Now either these men were guided by God into recognizing the differences, or they were left to their own devices. I am in the camp of the former.

Sure, it took men to recognize that. And, I wouldn't even argue against them being guided to do so. But that doesn't make them authoritative.

Let me ask you. When did 1 Corinthians become authoritative and scripture?

[Katabole]

In response to the OP, the 1611 King James Version actually includes the Apocrypha, same as the English version of the Vulgate used by Catholics. It was removed from the KJV in 1885 and has never been reprinted in subsequent Protestant Bibles.

Some claim the Apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed over a 100 years ago or so. Some say it was removed because of not finding the books in the original Hebrew manuscripts. Others claim it wasn't removed by the church, but by printers to cut costs in distributing Bibles in the United States. Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls contained parts of the Apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit. Martin Luther said, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." Personally, I find the books of the Apocrypha excellent historical resources, especially Maccabees. Bel and the Dragon is an entertaining read and the prayer of Manasseh is uplifting considering what a terrible king of Judah he is referenced to be in Kings.