Hey everyone, thanks so much for all your feedback! I've been reading through all your comments and I'm very grateful for all your thoughts & support! While making this video, I made an effort to explain everything as simply as possible, so I've probably skipped or oversimplified some points that could be explained in depth in a whole new video... with that in mind, some viewpoints in Catholicism and Protestantism aren't going to be explained as thoroughly as I'd like them to be. But, since I'm no expert in the Protestant and Catholic faiths, I encourage everyone to comment your thoughts and opinions, so I can learn more about what you believe! More videos coming soon!
@@EricSanchez-m4h If you're interested in more information about Catholicism specifically, you can find the Catechism of the Catholic Church (basically, everything the Catholic Church believes), at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website (TH-cam won't let me paste the link in here.) There's also a channel on TH-cam called "Ascension Presents" that dives into some of the aspects of our faith in an understandable way. And I'll continue posting videos on this channel to try to explain everything I can!
Once, I was reading a book where someone said that a Protestant bible was "devoid of wisdom" and I was like, "Well, of course, it is! You guys removed that one!"
I go to a Protestant church and my pastor gives so much crap to Catholics for having church tradition. But simultaneously Martin Luther tried to remove most books of the Bible 😭
The original 24 books canon already has dragons in it, as they are mentioned in Genesis (as part of the creation story, translated as "whales"), Isaiah and Job, among others...
Protestants reject these additional Deuterocanonical books because they’re from the Septuagint. By their logic, they should also reject the New Testament because it is based on the Septuagint. Writers like Paul, Matthew, and Luke frequently quote the Septuagint because it was their only source of scripture. Martin Luther incorrectly thought of the Masoretic Text as the original scripture simply because it was written in Hebrew. The Septuagint was actually written hundreds of years before the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint was accepted by the Jews until the early Christians used it to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. They then wrote their Masoretic Text so it would exclude it. So the Jews excluded the Deuterocanonical books because they were used to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, and Martin Luther excluded them because they proved Catholic doctrines like purgatory to be true. It’s sad that protestants now are deceived and don’t have the whole truth because of him.
Whaaat?😮 I didn't know that. So all these books are canon in the Hebrew Bible aka the Tanakh? If so, I guess I gotta buy a catholic bible. All I care about is the truth. What about the dragon in the book of Daniel is written in the scriptures of the Jews? I have so many questions now
i recently read it. and i was trying so hard not to laugh..... a lot of the stuff in it is funny. like Tobias goes on a quest to cure his dads blindness with the entrails of a fish.. and that the heart and liver of that fish helped his demon possess cousin who had 7 suitors die before they had sex with her. so he threw the organs into the fire to wife his cousin
@ltk.mp4 Here, mate :) Tobit 2:10 (NRSVUE) "I did not know that there were sparrows on the wall; their fresh droppings fell into my eyes and produced white films. I went to physicians to be healed, but the more they treated me with ointments, the more my vision was obscured by the white films, until I became completely blind. For four years I remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais."
I would have added that 2nd maccabees book lays down 1) intercession by the saints in heaven 2) the efficacy of prayer for the dead and 3) the resurrection of the dead, which 3 is very very important too!. Great video!
As a Catholic, I find that a very nice overview of Scriptures persevered in the Catholic Bible. Thank You and God Bless! Sincerely in Xto (Christo) Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
Agreed, my only quibble is that he shouldn't really say Maccabees is about Catholic Theology so much as Jewish Theology or early Christian Theology (Orthodoxy is a thing, y'know!), but it's not incorrect.
Amazing video. A good sequel for this video should focus on the 'Extra' books in the Orthodox and Ethiopian Bibles. They have more than the Catholics do!
I don’t know if the differences are grand enough. Generally speaking the books missing don’t radically change theology in the slightest. Unless you want to count Enoch/the Shepard for ethopia which isn’t even considered canon for the entirety of those churches. Moreover other people have good videos about both of those books. But for Maccabees 3 4 psalm 151 the prayer of mannaseah and 1 esdras it’s not super important.
@@elijahknox4421why would you take the word of 1 person to decide what's in the Bible over hundreds of scholars and bishops that debated for 1100 years in 5 councils? Should you trust the congration lead by the Holy Spirit and refuse the personal interpretation of a single individual which is condemned even by Peter?
@@francescoaccomando7781 because that person is God personified. He knows more, is wiser and is more loving than all of those bishops and scholars combined
Because they weren’t considered scripture in first century Judea. So they are books of wisdom and value, by members of the old covenant. But we don’t consider it scripture because based on scholarship we don’t believe Jesus would have. But that’s not to say we think they are not valuable. We just don’t think they’re necessary for salvation.
@@rawrbeez6625then why did Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint to preach the OT? the Septuagint had the deuterocanon, so every book in this video. Undeniable facts
@ he also used the Book of Enoch to preach dude that doesn’t make it scripture or authoritative. He also used other Greek and Hellenistic philosophical writings. He was a well read man. But in his day the Tanakh was considered the authoritative text for Hebrews. The Septuagint was used in the wider Hellenistic world but even the Jews using it would have recognized the difference between the books. But non Jews did not. Agree to disagree but that’s the history of it.
@@rawrbeez6625 All the quotes from the old testament are quotes from the Septuagint, which we know due to linguistic specifics of phrasing in the original language of the Gospels. The Jews at the time of Jesus didn't have a settled canon or any idea of what was "definitively authoritative", and basically still don't, since they no longer have the religious authority to make such pronouncements.
Wait... *Daniel* is an extra book? But I thought the story of Daniel in the lion's den was pretty mainstream, to the point where one of the earlier _VeggieTales_ episode was based on said story?
No, but there are extra chapters in some Greek editions, and in the Latin edition most Catholic Bibles are translated from. By the way, they are not 'Catholic' books or chapters - the KJV, the mother of Protestant translations, included these books. The difference is that the KJV (and the Greek OT) had them separately, and the Latin and Catholic Bibles (in the case of Daniel) have them included in the text. They have Daniel 13, which on its own is called 'Susanna'; and they have Daniel 14, which on its own is called 'Bel and the Dragon'. There is another, named 'The Song of the Three Holy Children', which in the Latin is in Daniel chapter 3 inserted directly between verses 23 and 24. (In that version verse 24 is actually verse 91!!!)
I would say it's a great video overall, but there are a few things to clear up: Martin Luther didn't actually get rid of any of the books...this is a pervasive myth. All he did was move them to their own section and labelled them essentially as "Good for reading, but not scripture". They weren't fully removed until close to the 18th century when the practice of removing them really gained traction. It's also worth noting the canon had been a point of contention even since the earliest days of the church, and thus, saying it was perfectly decided in the earliest council would be inaccurate and misleading. An example of this is the Orthodox canon of scripture, or rather, lack thereof.
@@lincolnfleischman5259Except you are wrong. The council of trent made them Canon. These books weren't in the original Hebrew Bible and have always been disputed to not being in the old testament.
One thing I thought I'd mention: Martin Luther didn't remove any books from the Bible. He disputed books in both the Old AND the New Testaments, but since the Old Testament canon was much less agreed upon during this time, it faced more criticism from protestants later in history. The deuterocanonical books (known as the "apocrypha" in protestantism) weren't removed from the protestant Bible until 1885, hundreds of years after Luther's death.
1Maccabees 2:49-64, is one of my favorite bible verses. Genuinely give it a read even if you aren't Catholic, i think its a timeless piece of inspiration and reminder of Gods love for His people
Absolutely love this type of content. I feel like my knowledge about Catholics is lacking compared to other religions, so this hit the spot. You should seriously consider examining other religions in a similar style, though perhaps with a bit more of a neutral connotation. It feels like you take a lot of personal stake in your videos, I assume that's because you're religious. Nothing wrong with that, if you wanna make specifically religious content then all the power to you. Though I think you'll see more success if you focus on the objective qualities of what you're talking about, rather then trying to turn it into a sermon. Keep up the good work!
Hey, some suggestions as I listen to this: 1. Off to a rocky start for fairness with "Tobit is a fever dream"... In the book of Tobit, it's important that the Archangel Raphael TELLS Tobias to burn the fish guts and apply the fish gall to his father's face, otherwise it seems like he's just doing it for no reason. Faithfulness to God has miraculous results, even when the action you're doing in trust to God doesn't make sense. 2. Judith is fine, very concise. 3. Esther is fine. 4. Maccabees is good. You could have done to mention that this rebellion is what they commemmorate as Hanukkah, and that praying for the dead and prayer to the saints is thus a pre-Christian Jewish tradition, rather than Catholic specifically. Tobit also does a lot of prayer for the dead, and when we first meet him he's burying the dead which have no one else to tend to them. 5. You could have mentioned that Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 2 specifically is a parallel to the end of Matthew and the crucifixion. 6. Sirach actually is a better "background to Jesus' teachings" than Wisdom of Solomon, since there are some very obvious parallels. 7. Baruch is Jeremiah's scribe. 8. Daniel is pretty good too
You definitely need to do a follow up video on what actually happened with the deuterocanonical books. You only mentioned what the catholic church tells their followers, but not what actually happened. That they cherrypick these local, non-eucomenical councils (of which there were hundreds, that had no dogmatic authority) when they align with what Rome teaches today and disregard the same council when they oppose what Rome teaches today. That they pretend like there wasn't a centuries long ongoing debate about these books long before the protestant reformation, and that many catholics also doubted the canonicity of them. That even Luther's chief opponent, Cardinal Cajetan, was on the side of doubting the canonicity. Like with many things, Rome twists, bends, turns, cherrypicks and quotemines stuff to support their dogmas.
I’m not Roman Catholic, but there’s an extremely long and well documented acceptance in the Church Fathers of the Deuterocanonical books. Apart from St. Jerome, there really isn’t much debate about whether or not the 7 books as a whole, or at least part of the Deuterocanon should be included in the broader canon of Scripture. The books are even quoted and alluded to in the NT.
From a High Church Protestant perspective, the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha are considered Written Tradition rather than scripture. While we concede that they _might_ be revelation, we cannot be certain, as even Jews disagreed about their status as scripture, so it is best to draw our theology primarily from stuff everyone agrees _is_ revelation. There is an official King James Version translation of the Deuterocanon, and Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles of Faith urges Christians to read these books. Martin Luther himself translated these books into German, and described them as useful. I have a particular fondness for Tobit, as it may have influenced Tolkien and later questing fantasy as a genre.
I think that these books definitely should be in the Bible, as they are in the Septuagint. The prostestants proudly reject these books, claiming, that they are not in the Masoretic Text. But no one really seems to think about it deeper. The rabbis had the MT for a thousand years, wouldn't they remove some things, change others that they don't like? For it seems like they did so. The Septuagint is much older, and much more authoritative. The Papacy is not something I follow, but Septuagint all the way!
The books in the Hebrew Bible were all canonized at an early time. The preface of Sirach already recognizes a Biblical canon, so all those apocryphal books are later additions, written after the canonization of the Hebrew code... In fact, Qumran has all the books of the Hebrew Bible sans Esther, plus Enoch and Jubilees (which aren't even in the Septuagint)...
@@marvalice3455 It's definitely not part of the Hebrew Bible but a later addition. And your question is literally the division between Jews and Christians. According to some early Christians, like the Marcionites, the OT shouldn't even be part of Christian canon...
These books are pretty important, for instance in Tobit, burning the fish heart and liver is how to exercise the demon Beelzebul as according to the demon himself in the Testament of Solomon, which connects these two books.
Ever since watching Wendigoon's video on the Lost Books of the Bible and him mentioning the different books between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, I've been wondering about them.
This is a good, informative video about the Catholic bible. My only concern would be this: the idea that Martin Luther removed books from the Bible is incorrect and overly simplistic. The canon was not settled in the 4th century, and Christians disagreed over the canon throughout church history. In Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures (written during the 4th century), he supported a shorter canon which was much closer to the Protestant canon (though I think he includes Baruch). The council was not infallibly defined by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent. Before this council, prominent Roman Catholics held to a shorter canon like Cardinal Cajetan in the 1500s. I believe these “extra” books are fascinating and helpful. I would just love for these common talking points to be retired. Edit: I also understand that this video is short and oversimplified on purpose. Many of these points you couldn’t fully develop, which is perfectly understandable. I just thought I’d give my two cents. Thank you for the video! God bless!
God bless you all remember how much you are loved by The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. So spend some more time with them as they love it when you do. ❤️👑✝️🕊🙏❤️
The interesting things about Baruch being a lesser known book from the deuterocanon is that it was usually included in Protestant Bibles shortly after the reformation, while the others weren’t.
The difference comes from that the Jews don't accept as divinely inspired the old Testament books Martin Luthor removed. And that is why Luthor removed them. Which is also why he didn't believe as biblical things that were derived purely from them.
Former Protestant of 20+ years here! Thanks for this video! I haven’t been able to find a really good resource on the Deuterocanon, what they’re about, and why and how they fit in the Biblical canon. I’m not aware if there’s a Catholic “BibleProject” out there but regardless, thanks for this video!
The St Paul Center is a good start. Dr Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre and others are the people you need to learn from about the canon. For long-form discussions relating to anything and everything about the faith, Matt Fradd's Pints with Aquinas is great. PS the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is finally out; you might consider getting it to learn more. Keep learning and you'll come to the fullness of the truth. God bless.
I can't believe I forgot to mention this but the TH-cam channel Apocrypha Apocalypse has (almost) anything and everything you would want to know about the deuterocanon, which protestants call the Apocrypha. I guarantee you that it's going to be a good use of your time. Again, God bless.
Sorry if this isn’t much help, but this is a basic timeline on it and I hope you can go from there: - The Deuterocanonical books were written before 100 BC and were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by many Jews at the time. - In 1 AD, New Testament authors relied on the Septuagint as their scriptural source. - Around 90 AD, Jewish leaders in Palestine rejected the Deuterocanonical books and excluded them from their Masoretic Text. - In the 4th and 5th centuries, early Christian councils affirmed the Deuterocanonical books as part of the Bible. - During the Reformation in the 16th century, Protestants rejected these books - the Catholic Church reaffirmed their inclusion at the Council of Trent in the 1540s and 1560s.
What a lovely video. Bless your heart. I really like the duterocanonical books. It is a shame Martin Luther, Snr removed them. Especially Toblit. I like Raphael.
Martin Luther didn't remove those books. They've been included in protestant Bibles for centuries in a separate section. They were removed by 19th century Bible societies without the consent or opinion of others within the protestant communities. Even still today you can find protestant Bibles with the Apocryphal books included. You can even find I & II Esdras & The Prayer of Manasseh which are excluded from Roman Catholic Bibles.
The Apocrypha was/is preserved in the protestant 1611 KJV. I have a copy of it. It actually has 3 more books that aren't in catholic bibles. I've looked through them both.
Maybe you will get to these in the next video but, I am not Catholic, kind of a free agent, looking for my place, but I have read the bible a few times as well as a read of every book of the Septuagint. Why don't Catholics accept 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 (not a full book of course), 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees. It is unfair to suggest Protestants removed books when Catholics have done as well. And you really ought to give reasons why both Catholics reject some, and why Protestants would...even if you don't agree with those reasons. I would argue protestants are more consistent, as they accept every book of the Old Testament that the Jewish faith accepts. Why do the Jewish Scholars of today also reject these books? From my understanding these books were not written by Prophets or seem to be additions to the books of Daniel and Ester that were added after the books were written. Which is a very serious crime because man should not be adding to written Scripture. Also, none of these new books were written in Hebrew, which the Jewish faith says they must have been written in Hebrew to be the word of God. These are not meant to be "gotcha" questions, and I am interested in any detailed answers you might have, as good answers would help shift my views and understanding more towards the Catholic Faith, as I do respect the faith, and it is very much still on my list, unlike a couple of Protestant traditions I have fully rejected. But having read these books, I am not convince they reach the same levels of Scripture as the other books of the bible. Though some such as Tobit, Judith, and 4 Maccabees were very interesting.
Not sure why Catholics reject 1/2 Esdras, 3/4 maccabees, etc. but I’m pretty sure that the Septuagint is where most of the New Testament quotes of the OT are lifted from directly and what the apostles used. Also what I hear is that there was no set Jewish canon in Jesus time, so Protestants using a bible that current Jews accept that was made after they already rejected Christ doesn’t mean much. I saw a video by Dr Taylor Marshall where he said early church fathers like clement and polycarp quoted the deuterocanon as though they’re scripture. (Also Eastern Orthodoxy sometimes does accept all the books you mentioned are in the Septuagint, but there’s no universal consensus I’m pretty sure as there is with Catholics and Protestants.)
@@kristianrodriguez4676 The only thing I might add here is yes, most New Testament quotes are from the Septuagint, but they are all from the books Protestants and the Jewish faith use. There are some allusions that could be from the deuterocanoical books, but those are worded vague enough it is hard to call them direct references. Though, in fairness, I have to add Ester and the Song of Solomon do not have any new testament quotes, so if a book not being in the New Testament is the standard these may not measure up either. Many Protestants quite like the Septuagint translations, and study the original Greek. They just don't hold a high level to the books that seem questionable as scripture, as they do not seem to be recognized by Christ nor the Apostles. We also have to really define what makes something inspired scripture, vs supplemental reading. I think the idea of was it written by a prophet, or Apostle is a good standard of measure. From roughly 400 BC until the time of John the Baptist there were no prophets, so books written during that time do not fit the standard. just how there are many great writing of the early church from AD 100-400 that were not allowed in the New Testament, because they were not written by the Apostles, even though there were some that people wanted. Remember the holy days of Hanukkah are derived form the rebellion written about in Maccabees. Yet they do not consider him a prophet nor, are those books scripture to them. I would ask if we don't use the standard of if it was written by a prophet or apostle, what other standard should be used that holds up, and not susceptible to the fallibility of men?
@ I guess the reason why I don’t believe the canon is susceptible to the fallibility of men (in so far as it’s in accordance with the true church and not some schism) is because I don’t think it’s possible that the church is fallible on matters like that. That’s probably the first thing I came to accept about Catholicism, and then everything else stems from that.
@ I also believe in the true church. The insistence that yours is the true church, or just the only path and could in no way veered away over the last 2000 years. is a huge stumbling block for me not to join the Catholic Church. We are told to follow Christ with humility, and love. I find a lot of hubris in the idea that "our way is the only way" And everyone else is wrong. And there is little love for any who disagree, when you make a claim that they are not part of the true church. Most protestants recite the Nicene creed, including the part "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." Though some do change the word "catholic" to "Christian," which I personally am not fond of. But it is very rare for a Protestant, insist that Catholics are not part of the church, and I would flat our reject any church that said so. By and large protestants believe their Catholic brothers and sisters have errors, but Christ's church is wider than 1 branch on the tree, it encompasses the whole tree. Most bible believing protestants focus more on the first 300-400 year of church history, while Catholics embrace the full 2000 years of church tradition. They are all part of the same root. A lot of protestant churches have lost their way, but many still seem to adhere to the words, life and sacrifice of Christ. Maybe you could be the most correct church, but Christ is the true and only path of salvation, so any church, humbly and lovingly trying to find Christ, and live by Him, is part of the true church. The idea that, my church is the only one, no matter who says it, is an idea of a Pharisee, "our law is the only law" When everyone else is saying "Christ's law is the only law" I think it is quite dangerous to condemn others for minor disagreements, when Christ will forgive all of us, even if the sin was being misled by our church. I hope no matter what church I end up in, I never fall into the mindset other church traditions are not part of a true Church, I was prideful in my youth, God helped come out of that mindset, I would never want to find that level of pride again that says, what is the right path for me, has to be right the right path for others. As long as Christ is at the center, our different paths should lead to the same goal. Even if I were to be convinced to become catholic. I would still respect my Protestant brothers and sisters, I might help guild them to the Catholic way of thinking, but I would do my best to treat them lovingly, and never imply they may not be saved for disagreeing with some Catholic doctrines. I would focus on our shared love for Christ, and trying to be an good example of love and virtue, in hopes they see why I am correct, even if I leave them free to disagree with some ideas.
If you're interested in more information about Catholicism specifically, you can find the Catechism of the Catholic Church (basically, everything the Catholic Church believes), at usccb.org (US Conference of Catholic Bishops.) There's also a channel on TH-cam called "Ascension Presents" that dives into some of the aspects of our faith in an understandable way. And I'll continue posting videos on this channel to try to explain everything I can!
The TH-cam channel Apocrypha Apocalypse has (almost) anything and everything you would want to know about the deuterocanon, which protestants call the Apocrypha.
@floptaxie68 the Didicae was common in the AD 200s. It was like the handbook for worship services. It is also thought to have been writ before the Gospels though it has several verses directly quoting all 4 Gospels. The basic form of The Mass laid out in The Didicae is still the basic form of The Mass, which is my argument that it should have been included. It was not because the Bishops said it was the common church book, but not The Word of God.
@floptaxie68 if you like rabbit holes, you might want to look up all the books they considered for the cannon, and did not include. Also, why they stuck with The Septiuagent for the Old Testament.
Great video. Just a small nitpick; I feel it should be mentioned why the Eccumenical Councils decided on 73 books. Catholics use a version of the Jewish bible called the Septuagint (used at the time of jesus) whereas Protestants use the older Masoretic works which Jews today also use.
The Catholic Biblical canon is also based on its reappearance throughout Church history like in the regional Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Third of Carthage in the 4th century as well as the Ecumenical councils of Florence (15th century) and Trent (16th century). The Catholic Church has its canon because it is generally the most agreed upon canon throughout Church history. The Protestant canon is based on the Jewish Tanakh since Protestants believe that the Jews were given the authority to make a canon by God and since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism after Christ's resurrection. The main problem with this though is that the Jewish canon didn't get standardized to the Protestant one until around the 2nd century, far after the time of Jesus, so even if the Jews did have authority on this, they would've lost it by then. This also doesn't really explain the canon for the New Testament. That's all I have to say, as you can probably tell I'm Catholic.
@fire15aidenspencer72 your point about the Tanakh being created after the death of Christ is my main reason for supporting our Catholic Bible. I believe it is important to use the version of the Jewish bible that God himself, in human form, on earth would have used. If Jesus used the Septuagint, should we not follow in his actions and use it too?
Er concerning texts, yes and no. The Masoretic texts are primarily dated from no later than the 10th and 11th centuries. However the founding of the Dead Sea Scrolls (The oldest hebrew Manuscripts we have) has found the Masoretic texts to be slightly more accurate than the Septuagint at least when compared.
hi there! 5:33 states that Protestants do not honor saints, nor pray for the dead. this isn't true. while there are some modern evangelical-types that don't practice any form of ancient tradition like these, traditional protestants, such as confessional Lutherans, which i am, do in fact to these things. we honor the saints by observing their feast days, and we will often have masses on these feast days. we do not ask the saints to pray for us, but we thank God for blessing His church and people for these saints. however, there are some Anglicans that do in fact invoke saints, though in a much more limited sense than Roman Catholics. praying for the dead is not forbidden and is indeed practiced by some, though not many. i will sometimes pray for someone who has passed, that God may grant them forgiveness and grace before their passing since God is beyond space and time.
Since the Jewish faith only has the Old Testament as part of its cannon, do they have the “extra” books as well, or just the ones in the Protestant Bible?
A second reason most Protestants (Anglicans have them, for instance) don't include the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books is they're copying the Jewish biblical canon but with the books in a more chronological order, and the Tanakh doesn't include books like Tobit and Judith because they were either originally written in Greek during the early Hellenizing period, or the oldest copies known are from that time. Pretty much anything past the couple generations returned from the Babylonian Exile isn't in the OT, and the NT ends only a century or so after the Resurrection. Also, Martin Luther originally tried to remove nearly the whole OT and parts of the NT for being "too Jewish", until his early followers convinced him not to.
Tobit is such a goofy story man. Interesting that Raphael shows up. i don't think he is featured in any other books in the canon. Just in tobit and 1st enoch
I might be wrong here, but don't 1 and 2 Maccabees come right before the Gospels? I am a Hungarian Roman Catholic, and in my Catholic Bible, the next book is the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew. Is it different in English? I am genuinely curious.
They are apocrypha books, it means hidden or secret books of the ancient times. These books was never part in the Old Testament of the Hebrew Books because it has no authority as inspired books through God's prophets, so it was never canonical.
Protestant here! While I don't think these books are scripture, they are definitely edifying and good for Christians to read so this is a helpful explainer. Plus your voice is very easy to listen to! It should be noted that the parts of Esther that are not found in the Protestant canon are the Greek additions, not found in Hebrew originals as implied here. Also, they are in the Luther bible, same as Jerome's Vulgate, at the end of the book. Also, protestants do honor the saints, though we do not direct our prayers to them, and many do offer prayers for the dead, especially the Anglicans. Not trying to start a debate, but trying to add some nuance (I know it's a 10 minute video, so you can't get all the technicalities right) Looking forward to your video on the canon! It would be helpful to address Luther's Catholic opponents who agreed with him on the shorter canon if you are going to argue he was removing books from an already settled canon rather than being agreeing with another catholic tradition at the time.
Well worded response to the video. I was not aware that protestants honour the saints as I have unfortunately met many who do not. It was to my understanding that it was just anglicans who honoured them, are you saying this is incorrect?
@@louissmith8600 Yeah unfortunately you're not going to find many who honor the saints among the "me and my bible" type protestants. The more historically rooted protestants would give honor to the saints as those who have run the race ahead of us, but would not do this through intercessory prayer to them or the use of icons.
@TheRoark I see, so they would see them as those who came before and luved righteous lives of god. I supppose that does make sense. It is a shame that more do not listen to the teachings of the saints. I believe that although it is definitely not as important as the bible, the saints were wise and there is a lot we can learn from them.
Wisdom has the clearest prophesy of Christ outside of Isaiah. Wisdom 2:13-20 He professes to have knowledge of God and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, 15 because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life, 18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how reasonable he is and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” (Cf. Matthew 27:38-43) 38 Two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Wisdom also has the only explicit connection of the serpet in the garden to the devil. Wisdom 2:24 but through the devil envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it.
@@wardrm5598 The reason for this is that while the New Testament canon was essentially universally agreed upon by the fourth century, minor variations in the Old Testament persisted through the Great Schism (c. 1054). These differences, as you can see, were relatively minor and nothing close to the later difference between the Protestant Old Testament and the Catholic/Orthodox Old Testament
But how do these compare to the Jewish versions? Also, Protestants leaving books out because they make Jews and Women look important isn’t a surprise if you knew what Martin Luther thought about Jews and women.
The “Jewish versions” is the Masoretic Text, which is a compilation of the Hebrew Scriptures and is followed by Judaism today. The New Testament was written using the Septuagint as its primary scriptural source. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of early Hebrew scriptures, and it includes these additional Deuterocanonical books. Protestants follow the Masoretic Text, which was developed centuries after the Septuagint. The Deuterocanonical books were originally accepted by Jews but were later excluded from the Masoretic Text because Jewish people didn’t like that early Christians used them to prove Jesus is the Messiah. Martin Luther rejected these books because he mistakenly believed that the Masoretic Text was the “original” and also because they supported Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory.
It seems Luther removed them on a very weak basis. There is great amount of attestation for the Deuterocanon in the period of the early Church. We also must ask what authority Luther has, in comparison to the Ecumenical Councils, to declare the Deuterocanon not Scripture. And let's keep in mind, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation were also disputed in the early Church period... why not remove those? The argument that the Deuterocanon wasn't well attested doesn't really stand in light of the decision of the Councils and attestation of the Church Fathers and gives us reason to doubt other core books of the New Testament. Also, to argue for the Protestant canon from the Jewish isn't really a great argument... as Jerome notes, it is better to be submissive to the Church, not the Pharisees. The idea Jesus would have used the later conceived Jewish canon strictly is dubious. I think it's likely that Luther's debate with Johann Eck likely influenced his decision. The 2nd book of Maccabees explicitly provides support for major Catholic doctrines that Luther wanted to do away with.
Well actually the Canon of Scripture has always had 73 books. The protestant bible does not follow the canom of scripture in it's entirety and so has less. They were only removed in the 1800s, so not that long ago really. The Canon of Scripture still has 73 books.
Hey everyone, thanks so much for all your feedback! I've been reading through all your comments and I'm very grateful for all your thoughts & support! While making this video, I made an effort to explain everything as simply as possible, so I've probably skipped or oversimplified some points that could be explained in depth in a whole new video... with that in mind, some viewpoints in Catholicism and Protestantism aren't going to be explained as thoroughly as I'd like them to be. But, since I'm no expert in the Protestant and Catholic faiths, I encourage everyone to comment your thoughts and opinions, so I can learn more about what you believe! More videos coming soon!
When about Catholic Letters? Are they in the Protestant Bible? Like the Letters of Peter, James, John and more?
@@Arrivederci678 yes all books in the protestant Bible are common to the Catholic Bible except the books/excerpts mentioned in this video
Do you have any recommendations for more information
@@EricSanchez-m4h If you're interested in more information about Catholicism specifically, you can find the Catechism of the Catholic Church (basically, everything the Catholic Church believes), at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website (TH-cam won't let me paste the link in here.) There's also a channel on TH-cam called "Ascension Presents" that dives into some of the aspects of our faith in an understandable way. And I'll continue posting videos on this channel to try to explain everything I can!
For someone raised in a more Protestant form of Christianity, these videos have been great for learning and exploring the Catholic faith. Thank you!
Glad I can help! More videos coming soon!
@scribbledsaintare you catholic?
Thank you from me as well
Once, I was reading a book where someone said that a Protestant bible was "devoid of wisdom" and I was like, "Well, of course, it is! You guys removed that one!"
I go to a Protestant church and my pastor gives so much crap to Catholics for having church tradition. But simultaneously Martin Luther tried to remove most books of the Bible 😭
Theologically speaking, a Biblical canon with a dragon in it is better than a Biblical canon with no dragons.
The original 24 books canon already has dragons in it, as they are mentioned in Genesis (as part of the creation story, translated as "whales"), Isaiah and Job, among others...
@@adrianblake8876 Yes, but the Catholic canon has MORE dragons, therefore theologically superior.
Based 🐉
I like dragons but, I’m pretty sure that is not much of a reason for the inclusion of these books
@@BibleEnjoyer7486 Your theology is clearly not sufficiently advanced then.
Protestants reject these additional Deuterocanonical books because they’re from the Septuagint. By their logic, they should also reject the New Testament because it is based on the Septuagint. Writers like Paul, Matthew, and Luke frequently quote the Septuagint because it was their only source of scripture.
Martin Luther incorrectly thought of the Masoretic Text as the original scripture simply because it was written in Hebrew. The Septuagint was actually written hundreds of years before the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint was accepted by the Jews until the early Christians used it to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. They then wrote their Masoretic Text so it would exclude it.
So the Jews excluded the Deuterocanonical books because they were used to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, and Martin Luther excluded them because they proved Catholic doctrines like purgatory to be true. It’s sad that protestants now are deceived and don’t have the whole truth because of him.
Whaaat?😮 I didn't know that. So all these books are canon in the Hebrew Bible aka the Tanakh? If so, I guess I gotta buy a catholic bible.
All I care about is the truth.
What about the dragon in the book of Daniel is written in the scriptures of the Jews?
I have so many questions now
this is so well made that when i saw 88 subs i figured it had to be a mistake
thanks man 👍 we're growing strong
Well said😂
The channel got 1.2k subs in 13 days
@@elijahknox4421 i meant, that 88 was a reference to the Orthodox canon
Bro forgot to mention HOW Tobit got blind...
Some birds pooped in his eyes
Talk about being at the wrong place at the wrong time lol.
You think it was just regular bird poo or was it like demonically cursed bird poo? Bc I don't think regular bird poo would make someone blind
i recently read it. and i was trying so hard not to laugh..... a lot of the stuff in it is funny. like Tobias goes on a quest to cure his dads blindness with the entrails of a fish.. and that the heart and liver of that fish helped his demon possess cousin who had 7 suitors die before they had sex with her. so he threw the organs into the fire to wife his cousin
i read tobit last night, i didnt see any mention of this
@ltk.mp4 Here, mate :)
Tobit 2:10 (NRSVUE)
"I did not know that there were sparrows on the wall; their fresh droppings fell into my eyes and produced white films. I went to physicians to be healed, but the more they treated me with ointments, the more my vision was obscured by the white films, until I became completely blind. For four years I remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais."
I would have added that 2nd maccabees book lays down 1) intercession by the saints in heaven 2) the efficacy of prayer for the dead and 3) the resurrection of the dead, which 3 is very very important too!.
Great video!
As a Catholic, I find that a very nice overview of Scriptures persevered in the Catholic Bible.
Thank You and God Bless!
Sincerely in Xto (Christo)
Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
Agreed, my only quibble is that he shouldn't really say Maccabees is about Catholic Theology so much as Jewish Theology or early Christian Theology (Orthodoxy is a thing, y'know!), but it's not incorrect.
All bibles are Catholic Bibles. Some have the complete Canon of Scripture and others are abbreviated versions.
Amazing video.
A good sequel for this video should focus on the 'Extra' books in the Orthodox and Ethiopian Bibles. They have more than the Catholics do!
I don’t know if the differences are grand enough.
Generally speaking the books missing don’t radically change theology in the slightest.
Unless you want to count Enoch/the Shepard for ethopia which isn’t even considered canon for the entirety of those churches. Moreover other people have good videos about both of those books.
But for Maccabees 3 4 psalm 151 the prayer of mannaseah and 1 esdras it’s not super important.
This channel definitely deserves way more. Great video tho and God be with you
Thanks, I appreciate it!
Love the illustrations and concise summaries 😊
Tobit is priceless, I think we need to learn all we can about the Jewish diaspora in Media.
I believe in the word of Jesus not Martin Luther
And Martin Luthor believed in the word of Jesus not Pope Benedict
@@elijahknox4421why would you take the word of 1 person to decide what's in the Bible over hundreds of scholars and bishops that debated for 1100 years in 5 councils? Should you trust the congration lead by the Holy Spirit and refuse the personal interpretation of a single individual which is condemned even by Peter?
@@francescoaccomando7781 because that person is God personified. He knows more, is wiser and is more loving than all of those bishops and scholars combined
@@elijahknox4421 Then do not be protestant either, you are following a heretical man who removed books from the bible. Such a thing is blasphemous.
Absolutely excellent quality for such a new and small channel, you just gained a new subscriber!
Very well made video, keep up the good work, and God bless you
As a Catholic, I loved the video
Sirach SERVES SO HARD. I CANT EMPHASISE THIS WITH ENOUGH😊
Protestants:scripture is the only infallible thing
also protestants: yeah lets remove some books
Because they weren’t considered scripture in first century Judea. So they are books of wisdom and value, by members of the old covenant. But we don’t consider it scripture because based on scholarship we don’t believe Jesus would have. But that’s not to say we think they are not valuable. We just don’t think they’re necessary for salvation.
@@rawrbeez6625then why did Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint to preach the OT? the Septuagint had the deuterocanon, so every book in this video. Undeniable facts
@ he also used the Book of Enoch to preach dude that doesn’t make it scripture or authoritative. He also used other Greek and Hellenistic philosophical writings. He was a well read man. But in his day the Tanakh was considered the authoritative text for Hebrews. The Septuagint was used in the wider Hellenistic world but even the Jews using it would have recognized the difference between the books. But non Jews did not. Agree to disagree but that’s the history of it.
@@rawrbeez6625 All the quotes from the old testament are quotes from the Septuagint, which we know due to linguistic specifics of phrasing in the original language of the Gospels. The Jews at the time of Jesus didn't have a settled canon or any idea of what was "definitively authoritative", and basically still don't, since they no longer have the religious authority to make such pronouncements.
That is not what happened you liar. The deuterocanon has always been in dispute. And the original protestants still had them in their Bible.
Wait... *Daniel* is an extra book? But I thought the story of Daniel in the lion's den was pretty mainstream, to the point where one of the earlier _VeggieTales_ episode was based on said story?
A part of the book of Daniel is the extra book in Protestantism.
No, but there are extra chapters in some Greek editions, and in the Latin edition most Catholic Bibles are translated from. By the way, they are not 'Catholic' books or chapters - the KJV, the mother of Protestant translations, included these books. The difference is that the KJV (and the Greek OT) had them separately, and the Latin and Catholic Bibles (in the case of Daniel) have them included in the text. They have Daniel 13, which on its own is called 'Susanna'; and they have Daniel 14, which on its own is called 'Bel and the Dragon'. There is another, named 'The Song of the Three Holy Children', which in the Latin is in Daniel chapter 3 inserted directly between verses 23 and 24. (In that version verse 24 is actually verse 91!!!)
The "Bel and the Dragon" arc is only available to Catholics as exclusive lore.
Extra is a biased word, the catholics made the bible. The man who took it out was a schizophrenic adulterer among other things
Very well made. I look forward to seeing what you do next.
My son is going through catechesis right now this video was great to watch with him
I would say it's a great video overall, but there are a few things to clear up: Martin Luther didn't actually get rid of any of the books...this is a pervasive myth. All he did was move them to their own section and labelled them essentially as "Good for reading, but not scripture". They weren't fully removed until close to the 18th century when the practice of removing them really gained traction. It's also worth noting the canon had been a point of contention even since the earliest days of the church, and thus, saying it was perfectly decided in the earliest council would be inaccurate and misleading. An example of this is the Orthodox canon of scripture, or rather, lack thereof.
Thank you for this. I love you, God bless!!!
Love the videos brother!
Bro forgot to mention how these books were never considered Scripture until the Council of Trent in 1546
Just read up on it and... nope it was canonical much earlier, they are considered deuterocanonical.
@@lincolnfleischman5259Except you are wrong. The council of trent made them Canon. These books weren't in the original Hebrew Bible and have always been disputed to not being in the old testament.
This is such a good video.
Super helpful. Thanks and God bless🙏🙏
Great content dude!!!
Thanks! More to come!
Looking foward to future videos
One thing I thought I'd mention: Martin Luther didn't remove any books from the Bible. He disputed books in both the Old AND the New Testaments, but since the Old Testament canon was much less agreed upon during this time, it faced more criticism from protestants later in history. The deuterocanonical books (known as the "apocrypha" in protestantism) weren't removed from the protestant Bible until 1885, hundreds of years after Luther's death.
I'm catholic, but got a protestant bible, with some orthodox beliefs, got the "ALL DENOMINATIONS" gamepass😭😭
Thank you for this video!
Thank you so much for this video I only find the overviews of the 66 books
You forgot the spiritual aspects of Tobit: the intercession of angels
1Maccabees 2:49-64, is one of my favorite bible verses. Genuinely give it a read even if you aren't Catholic, i think its a timeless piece of inspiration and reminder of Gods love for His people
Only 865 subs? Let’s get this man up to several tens of thousands where he belongs!!
Proud to have the full 76 books.
Absolutely love this type of content. I feel like my knowledge about Catholics is lacking compared to other religions, so this hit the spot.
You should seriously consider examining other religions in a similar style, though perhaps with a bit more of a neutral connotation. It feels like you take a lot of personal stake in your videos, I assume that's because you're religious.
Nothing wrong with that, if you wanna make specifically religious content then all the power to you. Though I think you'll see more success if you focus on the objective qualities of what you're talking about, rather then trying to turn it into a sermon.
Keep up the good work!
Hey, some suggestions as I listen to this:
1. Off to a rocky start for fairness with "Tobit is a fever dream"... In the book of Tobit, it's important that the Archangel Raphael TELLS Tobias to burn the fish guts and apply the fish gall to his father's face, otherwise it seems like he's just doing it for no reason. Faithfulness to God has miraculous results, even when the action you're doing in trust to God doesn't make sense.
2. Judith is fine, very concise.
3. Esther is fine.
4. Maccabees is good. You could have done to mention that this rebellion is what they commemmorate as Hanukkah, and that praying for the dead and prayer to the saints is thus a pre-Christian Jewish tradition, rather than Catholic specifically. Tobit also does a lot of prayer for the dead, and when we first meet him he's burying the dead which have no one else to tend to them.
5. You could have mentioned that Wisdom of Solomon Chapter 2 specifically is a parallel to the end of Matthew and the crucifixion.
6. Sirach actually is a better "background to Jesus' teachings" than Wisdom of Solomon, since there are some very obvious parallels.
7. Baruch is Jeremiah's scribe.
8. Daniel is pretty good too
You definitely need to do a follow up video on what actually happened with the deuterocanonical books. You only mentioned what the catholic church tells their followers, but not what actually happened. That they cherrypick these local, non-eucomenical councils (of which there were hundreds, that had no dogmatic authority) when they align with what Rome teaches today and disregard the same council when they oppose what Rome teaches today. That they pretend like there wasn't a centuries long ongoing debate about these books long before the protestant reformation, and that many catholics also doubted the canonicity of them. That even Luther's chief opponent, Cardinal Cajetan, was on the side of doubting the canonicity. Like with many things, Rome twists, bends, turns, cherrypicks and quotemines stuff to support their dogmas.
I’m not Roman Catholic, but there’s an extremely long and well documented acceptance in the Church Fathers of the Deuterocanonical books. Apart from St. Jerome, there really isn’t much debate about whether or not the 7 books as a whole, or at least part of the Deuterocanon should be included in the broader canon of Scripture. The books are even quoted and alluded to in the NT.
@@WanderingThief Paul also quotes pagan poets in Acts 17. Does that make them Scripture?
Hope you would make videos explaining the more extended Canon by the Eastern Orthodox and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church like this too!
From a High Church Protestant perspective, the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha are considered Written Tradition rather than scripture. While we concede that they _might_ be revelation, we cannot be certain, as even Jews disagreed about their status as scripture, so it is best to draw our theology primarily from stuff everyone agrees _is_ revelation. There is an official King James Version translation of the Deuterocanon, and Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles of Faith urges Christians to read these books. Martin Luther himself translated these books into German, and described them as useful. I have a particular fondness for Tobit, as it may have influenced Tolkien and later questing fantasy as a genre.
I think that these books definitely should be in the Bible, as they are in the Septuagint. The prostestants proudly reject these books, claiming, that they are not in the Masoretic Text. But no one really seems to think about it deeper. The rabbis had the MT for a thousand years, wouldn't they remove some things, change others that they don't like? For it seems like they did so. The Septuagint is much older, and much more authoritative. The Papacy is not something I follow, but Septuagint all the way!
The books in the Hebrew Bible were all canonized at an early time. The preface of Sirach already recognizes a Biblical canon, so all those apocryphal books are later additions, written after the canonization of the Hebrew code...
In fact, Qumran has all the books of the Hebrew Bible sans Esther, plus Enoch and Jubilees (which aren't even in the Septuagint)...
@@adrianblake8876 does that mean the new testament is illegitimate because it was added later?
@@marvalice3455 It's definitely not part of the Hebrew Bible but a later addition. And your question is literally the division between Jews and Christians. According to some early Christians, like the Marcionites, the OT shouldn't even be part of Christian canon...
@adrianblake8876 you know who's really divisive between Christians and "Jews"?
Jesus.
@adrianblake8876 the Marcionites aren't Christians. And you should really look into what they had to say about the Jews before calling _me_ divisive.
These books are pretty important, for instance in Tobit, burning the fish heart and liver is how to exercise the demon Beelzebul as according to the demon himself in the Testament of Solomon, which connects these two books.
The apocryphal books in the Septuagint were in the KJV until 1880s.
Ever since watching Wendigoon's video on the Lost Books of the Bible and him mentioning the different books between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, I've been wondering about them.
Just a note in some Catholic translations Maccabees is placed after the Minor Prophets.
This is a good, informative video about the Catholic bible. My only concern would be this: the idea that Martin Luther removed books from the Bible is incorrect and overly simplistic.
The canon was not settled in the 4th century, and Christians disagreed over the canon throughout church history. In Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures (written during the 4th century), he supported a shorter canon which was much closer to the Protestant canon (though I think he includes Baruch). The council was not infallibly defined by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent. Before this council, prominent Roman Catholics held to a shorter canon like Cardinal Cajetan in the 1500s.
I believe these “extra” books are fascinating and helpful. I would just love for these common talking points to be retired.
Edit: I also understand that this video is short and oversimplified on purpose. Many of these points you couldn’t fully develop, which is perfectly understandable. I just thought I’d give my two cents. Thank you for the video! God bless!
God bless you all remember how much you are loved by The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. So spend some more time with them as they love it when you do.
❤️👑✝️🕊🙏❤️
MORE VIDEOS PLEASE
I would love to see a breakdown of the extra books in the ethiopian bible
The interesting things about Baruch being a lesser known book from the deuterocanon is that it was usually included in Protestant Bibles shortly after the reformation, while the others weren’t.
No, all of the apochrypha was included in early protestant Bibles. I have a 1560 Geneva Bible
Great video!
The difference comes from that the Jews don't accept as divinely inspired the old Testament books Martin Luthor removed. And that is why Luthor removed them. Which is also why he didn't believe as biblical things that were derived purely from them.
Former Protestant of 20+ years here! Thanks for this video! I haven’t been able to find a really good resource on the Deuterocanon, what they’re about, and why and how they fit in the Biblical canon. I’m not aware if there’s a Catholic “BibleProject” out there but regardless, thanks for this video!
The St Paul Center is a good start. Dr Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre and others are the people you need to learn from about the canon. For long-form discussions relating to anything and everything about the faith, Matt Fradd's Pints with Aquinas is great.
PS the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is finally out; you might consider getting it to learn more.
Keep learning and you'll come to the fullness of the truth. God bless.
I can't believe I forgot to mention this but the TH-cam channel Apocrypha Apocalypse has (almost) anything and everything you would want to know about the deuterocanon, which protestants call the Apocrypha. I guarantee you that it's going to be a good use of your time.
Again,
God bless.
Sorry if this isn’t much help, but this is a basic timeline on it and I hope you can go from there:
- The Deuterocanonical books were written before 100 BC and were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by many Jews at the time.
- In 1 AD, New Testament authors relied on the Septuagint as their scriptural source.
- Around 90 AD, Jewish leaders in Palestine rejected the Deuterocanonical books and excluded them from their Masoretic Text.
- In the 4th and 5th centuries, early Christian councils affirmed the Deuterocanonical books as part of the Bible.
- During the Reformation in the 16th century, Protestants rejected these books
- the Catholic Church reaffirmed their inclusion at the Council of Trent in the 1540s and 1560s.
I love this video!
I thought you were a youtuber with loads of views, im surpsrised you are not, the qquality of the video is really good
Quality work for a new channel, I'll subscribe
What a lovely video. Bless your heart.
I really like the duterocanonical books. It is a shame Martin Luther, Snr removed them. Especially Toblit. I like Raphael.
@@shyguymike he didn’t, they are still in his edition of the Bible. He was just a believer in the shorter canon like many other Catholics of his day.
Martin Luther didn't remove those books. They've been included in protestant Bibles for centuries in a separate section. They were removed by 19th century Bible societies without the consent or opinion of others within the protestant communities. Even still today you can find protestant Bibles with the Apocryphal books included. You can even find I & II Esdras & The Prayer of Manasseh which are excluded from Roman Catholic Bibles.
The Apocrypha was/is preserved in the protestant 1611 KJV. I have a copy of it. It actually has 3 more books that aren't in catholic bibles. I've looked through them both.
Are the 3 books you speak of in the Greek Orthodox Bile? Ive heard they have a 76 book Bible.
God bless you.
May i just comment that as someone who knows nothing of this I am interested thank you for that!
Blessed
Maybe you will get to these in the next video but, I am not Catholic, kind of a free agent, looking for my place, but I have read the bible a few times as well as a read of every book of the Septuagint.
Why don't Catholics accept 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 (not a full book of course), 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees. It is unfair to suggest Protestants removed books when Catholics have done as well. And you really ought to give reasons why both Catholics reject some, and why Protestants would...even if you don't agree with those reasons.
I would argue protestants are more consistent, as they accept every book of the Old Testament that the Jewish faith accepts. Why do the Jewish Scholars of today also reject these books? From my understanding these books were not written by Prophets or seem to be additions to the books of Daniel and Ester that were added after the books were written. Which is a very serious crime because man should not be adding to written Scripture. Also, none of these new books were written in Hebrew, which the Jewish faith says they must have been written in Hebrew to be the word of God.
These are not meant to be "gotcha" questions, and I am interested in any detailed answers you might have, as good answers would help shift my views and understanding more towards the Catholic Faith, as I do respect the faith, and it is very much still on my list, unlike a couple of Protestant traditions I have fully rejected. But having read these books, I am not convince they reach the same levels of Scripture as the other books of the bible. Though some such as Tobit, Judith, and 4 Maccabees were very interesting.
Not sure why Catholics reject 1/2 Esdras, 3/4 maccabees, etc. but I’m pretty sure that the Septuagint is where most of the New Testament quotes of the OT are lifted from directly and what the apostles used. Also what I hear is that there was no set Jewish canon in Jesus time, so Protestants using a bible that current Jews accept that was made after they already rejected Christ doesn’t mean much. I saw a video by Dr Taylor Marshall where he said early church fathers like clement and polycarp quoted the deuterocanon as though they’re scripture. (Also Eastern Orthodoxy sometimes does accept all the books you mentioned are in the Septuagint, but there’s no universal consensus I’m pretty sure as there is with Catholics and Protestants.)
@@kristianrodriguez4676 The only thing I might add here is yes, most New Testament quotes are from the Septuagint, but they are all from the books Protestants and the Jewish faith use. There are some allusions that could be from the deuterocanoical books, but those are worded vague enough it is hard to call them direct references.
Though, in fairness, I have to add Ester and the Song of Solomon do not have any new testament quotes, so if a book not being in the New Testament is the standard these may not measure up either.
Many Protestants quite like the Septuagint translations, and study the original Greek. They just don't hold a high level to the books that seem questionable as scripture, as they do not seem to be recognized by Christ nor the Apostles.
We also have to really define what makes something inspired scripture, vs supplemental reading. I think the idea of was it written by a prophet, or Apostle is a good standard of measure. From roughly 400 BC until the time of John the Baptist there were no prophets, so books written during that time do not fit the standard. just how there are many great writing of the early church from AD 100-400 that were not allowed in the New Testament, because they were not written by the Apostles, even though there were some that people wanted. Remember the holy days of Hanukkah are derived form the rebellion written about in Maccabees. Yet they do not consider him a prophet nor, are those books scripture to them.
I would ask if we don't use the standard of if it was written by a prophet or apostle, what other standard should be used that holds up, and not susceptible to the fallibility of men?
apparently they reject those books because they have lack of historical connection
@ I guess the reason why I don’t believe the canon is susceptible to the fallibility of men (in so far as it’s in accordance with the true church and not some schism) is because I don’t think it’s possible that the church is fallible on matters like that. That’s probably the first thing I came to accept about Catholicism, and then everything else stems from that.
@ I also believe in the true church. The insistence that yours is the true church, or just the only path and could in no way veered away over the last 2000 years. is a huge stumbling block for me not to join the Catholic Church.
We are told to follow Christ with humility, and love. I find a lot of hubris in the idea that "our way is the only way" And everyone else is wrong. And there is little love for any who disagree, when you make a claim that they are not part of the true church.
Most protestants recite the Nicene creed, including the part "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." Though some do change the word "catholic" to "Christian," which I personally am not fond of. But it is very rare for a Protestant, insist that Catholics are not part of the church, and I would flat our reject any church that said so. By and large protestants believe their Catholic brothers and sisters have errors, but Christ's church is wider than 1 branch on the tree, it encompasses the whole tree.
Most bible believing protestants focus more on the first 300-400 year of church history, while Catholics embrace the full 2000 years of church tradition. They are all part of the same root. A lot of protestant churches have lost their way, but many still seem to adhere to the words, life and sacrifice of Christ.
Maybe you could be the most correct church, but Christ is the true and only path of salvation, so any church, humbly and lovingly trying to find Christ, and live by Him, is part of the true church. The idea that, my church is the only one, no matter who says it, is an idea of a Pharisee, "our law is the only law" When everyone else is saying "Christ's law is the only law" I think it is quite dangerous to condemn others for minor disagreements, when Christ will forgive all of us, even if the sin was being misled by our church.
I hope no matter what church I end up in, I never fall into the mindset other church traditions are not part of a true Church, I was prideful in my youth, God helped come out of that mindset, I would never want to find that level of pride again that says, what is the right path for me, has to be right the right path for others. As long as Christ is at the center, our different paths should lead to the same goal. Even if I were to be convinced to become catholic. I would still respect my Protestant brothers and sisters, I might help guild them to the Catholic way of thinking, but I would do my best to treat them lovingly, and never imply they may not be saved for disagreeing with some Catholic doctrines. I would focus on our shared love for Christ, and trying to be an good example of love and virtue, in hopes they see why I am correct, even if I leave them free to disagree with some ideas.
Do you have any recommendations for further information
If you're interested in more information about Catholicism specifically, you can find the Catechism of the Catholic Church (basically, everything the Catholic Church believes), at usccb.org (US Conference of Catholic Bishops.) There's also a channel on TH-cam called "Ascension Presents" that dives into some of the aspects of our faith in an understandable way. And I'll continue posting videos on this channel to try to explain everything I can!
The TH-cam channel Apocrypha Apocalypse has (almost) anything and everything you would want to know about the deuterocanon, which protestants call the Apocrypha.
Thank you for the information any other recommendations are welcome thank you
These are also in orthodox bibles
There are no "extra books" in the Catholic and Orthodox bibles, the Lutheran church has removed books from the Bible.
why does the thumbnail show esther?
Martin luther romved the 7 books
Think the Didacae should have been included in the Cannon. If it had been, perhaps Martin Luther would never had rebelled.
I think that book was discovered after Martin Luther times
@floptaxie68 the Didicae was common in the AD 200s. It was like the handbook for worship services. It is also thought to have been writ before the Gospels though it has several verses directly quoting all 4 Gospels. The basic form of The Mass laid out in The Didicae is still the basic form of The Mass, which is my argument that it should have been included. It was not because the Bishops said it was the common church book, but not The Word of God.
@floptaxie68 if you like rabbit holes, you might want to look up all the books they considered for the cannon, and did not include. Also, why they stuck with The Septiuagent for the Old Testament.
Great video. Just a small nitpick; I feel it should be mentioned why the Eccumenical Councils decided on 73 books. Catholics use a version of the Jewish bible called the Septuagint (used at the time of jesus) whereas Protestants use the older Masoretic works which Jews today also use.
The Septuagint is Greek and predates the Hebrew Masoretic texts by centuries.
@cheifhog2552 I was aware that the Septuagint was greek. I did not know it was the older of the two though, thank you for letting me know.
The Catholic Biblical canon is also based on its reappearance throughout Church history like in the regional Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Third of Carthage in the 4th century as well as the Ecumenical councils of Florence (15th century) and Trent (16th century). The Catholic Church has its canon because it is generally the most agreed upon canon throughout Church history.
The Protestant canon is based on the Jewish Tanakh since Protestants believe that the Jews were given the authority to make a canon by God and since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism after Christ's resurrection. The main problem with this though is that the Jewish canon didn't get standardized to the Protestant one until around the 2nd century, far after the time of Jesus, so even if the Jews did have authority on this, they would've lost it by then. This also doesn't really explain the canon for the New Testament.
That's all I have to say, as you can probably tell I'm Catholic.
@fire15aidenspencer72 your point about the Tanakh being created after the death of Christ is my main reason for supporting our Catholic Bible. I believe it is important to use the version of the Jewish bible that God himself, in human form, on earth would have used. If Jesus used the Septuagint, should we not follow in his actions and use it too?
Er concerning texts, yes and no. The Masoretic texts are primarily dated from no later than the 10th and 11th centuries. However the founding of the Dead Sea Scrolls (The oldest hebrew Manuscripts we have) has found the Masoretic texts to be slightly more accurate than the Septuagint at least when compared.
Wasn't in the Tanakh (hebrew bible) and isn't quoted or referenced in the new testament.
hi there! 5:33 states that Protestants do not honor saints, nor pray for the dead. this isn't true. while there are some modern evangelical-types that don't practice any form of ancient tradition like these, traditional protestants, such as confessional Lutherans, which i am, do in fact to these things.
we honor the saints by observing their feast days, and we will often have masses on these feast days. we do not ask the saints to pray for us, but we thank God for blessing His church and people for these saints. however, there are some Anglicans that do in fact invoke saints, though in a much more limited sense than Roman Catholics.
praying for the dead is not forbidden and is indeed practiced by some, though not many. i will sometimes pray for someone who has passed, that God may grant them forgiveness and grace before their passing since God is beyond space and time.
Since the Jewish faith only has the Old Testament as part of its cannon, do they have the “extra” books as well, or just the ones in the Protestant Bible?
Protestants use the Jewish canon
@ ok, thanks
I'm an Anglican/Episcopalian, and I accept these books as scripture.
I think they are read in services sometimes right?
Can anyone help me with which chapter and verse of 2 Macabees speaks abiut honoring saints? Thanks!
A second reason most Protestants (Anglicans have them, for instance) don't include the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books is they're copying the Jewish biblical canon but with the books in a more chronological order, and the Tanakh doesn't include books like Tobit and Judith because they were either originally written in Greek during the early Hellenizing period, or the oldest copies known are from that time. Pretty much anything past the couple generations returned from the Babylonian Exile isn't in the OT, and the NT ends only a century or so after the Resurrection.
Also, Martin Luther originally tried to remove nearly the whole OT and parts of the NT for being "too Jewish", until his early followers convinced him not to.
They copy the Catholic New Testament though, and they also believe that Jesus is the Christ unlike the Jews. So not a consistent argument.
What podcast number was this?
What about 1st and 2nd Esdras?
What about the Orthodox and Ethiopian churches?
Tobit is such a goofy story man. Interesting that Raphael shows up. i don't think he is featured in any other books in the canon. Just in tobit and 1st enoch
Poor Tobit, getting buried alive...
I might be wrong here, but don't 1 and 2 Maccabees come right before the Gospels? I am a Hungarian Roman Catholic, and in my Catholic Bible, the next book is the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew. Is it different in English? I am genuinely curious.
They are apocrypha books, it means hidden or secret books of the ancient times.
These books was never part in the Old Testament of the Hebrew Books because it has no authority as inspired books through God's prophets, so it was never canonical.
Protestant here! While I don't think these books are scripture, they are definitely edifying and good for Christians to read so this is a helpful explainer. Plus your voice is very easy to listen to!
It should be noted that the parts of Esther that are not found in the Protestant canon are the Greek additions, not found in Hebrew originals as implied here. Also, they are in the Luther bible, same as Jerome's Vulgate, at the end of the book.
Also, protestants do honor the saints, though we do not direct our prayers to them, and many do offer prayers for the dead, especially the Anglicans. Not trying to start a debate, but trying to add some nuance (I know it's a 10 minute video, so you can't get all the technicalities right)
Looking forward to your video on the canon! It would be helpful to address Luther's Catholic opponents who agreed with him on the shorter canon if you are going to argue he was removing books from an already settled canon rather than being agreeing with another catholic tradition at the time.
Well worded response to the video. I was not aware that protestants honour the saints as I have unfortunately met many who do not.
It was to my understanding that it was just anglicans who honoured them, are you saying this is incorrect?
@@louissmith8600 Yeah unfortunately you're not going to find many who honor the saints among the "me and my bible" type protestants. The more historically rooted protestants would give honor to the saints as those who have run the race ahead of us, but would not do this through intercessory prayer to them or the use of icons.
@TheRoark I see, so they would see them as those who came before and luved righteous lives of god. I supppose that does make sense.
It is a shame that more do not listen to the teachings of the saints. I believe that although it is definitely not as important as the bible, the saints were wise and there is a lot we can learn from them.
Wisdom has the clearest prophesy of Christ outside of Isaiah.
Wisdom 2:13-20
He professes to have knowledge of God
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
the very sight of him is a burden to us,
15 because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
16 We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy
and boasts that God is his father.
17 Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life,
18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
19 Let us test him with insult and torture,
so that we may find out how reasonable he is
and make trial of his forbearance.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
(Cf. Matthew 27:38-43)
38 Two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
Wisdom also has the only explicit connection of the serpet in the garden to the devil.
Wisdom 2:24 but through the devil envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his company experience it.
@ Totally agree! There is a broader historical retrieval movement within protestantism which is good.
Praying for the dead sort of contradicts Luke 16 and Jesus' parable of the beggar and the rich man
It feels like this video is slanted for Catholicism and against Protestantism.
I think the oposite
I mean Catholics don’t let heretics remove parts of the Bible so why wouldn’t it slant towards them?
@@mintoness62 I think it is a Catholic channel, so that isn’t surprising
I saw it as rather neutral. What made you think it unfairly biased?
Find the one holy Catholic and apostolic church ⛪️ to attend.
These comments are a warzone 💀
Now do a vid explaining Orthodox books to Catholics
It's not extra, it's the default bible
I think that's why it's in quotes
It’s the original seried vs the spin off. Of course the spin off have to take some element and leave some.
It's missing at least 3 books that Eastern Orthodox and protestant apocrypha have included for centuries.
@@wardrm5598 The reason for this is that while the New Testament canon was essentially universally agreed upon by the fourth century, minor variations in the Old Testament persisted through the Great Schism (c. 1054). These differences, as you can see, were relatively minor and nothing close to the later difference between the Protestant Old Testament and the Catholic/Orthodox Old Testament
👍
But how do these compare to the Jewish versions?
Also, Protestants leaving books out because they make Jews and Women look important isn’t a surprise if you knew what Martin Luther thought about Jews and women.
The “Jewish versions” is the Masoretic Text, which is a compilation of the Hebrew Scriptures and is followed by Judaism today. The New Testament was written using the Septuagint as its primary scriptural source. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of early Hebrew scriptures, and it includes these additional Deuterocanonical books.
Protestants follow the Masoretic Text, which was developed centuries after the Septuagint. The Deuterocanonical books were originally accepted by Jews but were later excluded from the Masoretic Text because Jewish people didn’t like that early Christians used them to prove Jesus is the Messiah. Martin Luther rejected these books because he mistakenly believed that the Masoretic Text was the “original” and also because they supported Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory.
Yeah, that's not the reason Luther "removed them." Also, Luther explicitly included the Apocrypha in his translation.
But declared them apocrypha
@lorenzzorzt Certainly. Edifying and worthy to be read? Absolutely! Inspired Scripture? Not so much.
@@troyhare6312 On what basis do you affirm it is not inspired?
I imagine the front cover on his Bible he also considered sacred scripture? No? Exactly
It seems Luther removed them on a very weak basis. There is great amount of attestation for the Deuterocanon in the period of the early Church. We also must ask what authority Luther has, in comparison to the Ecumenical Councils, to declare the Deuterocanon not Scripture. And let's keep in mind, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation were also disputed in the early Church period... why not remove those?
The argument that the Deuterocanon wasn't well attested doesn't really stand in light of the decision of the Councils and attestation of the Church Fathers and gives us reason to doubt other core books of the New Testament.
Also, to argue for the Protestant canon from the Jewish isn't really a great argument... as Jerome notes, it is better to be submissive to the Church, not the Pharisees. The idea Jesus would have used the later conceived Jewish canon strictly is dubious.
I think it's likely that Luther's debate with Johann Eck likely influenced his decision. The 2nd book of Maccabees explicitly provides support for major Catholic doctrines that Luther wanted to do away with.
i've seen all the videos....... now what?
it never ends.
Orthodox Bible have even more books
Well actually the Canon of Scripture has always had 73 books. The protestant bible does not follow the canom of scripture in it's entirety and so has less. They were only removed in the 1800s, so not that long ago really. The Canon of Scripture still has 73 books.
I'm sub 666 to this channel? Is that bad?
Wait till they here about the Ethiopian Bible
Wait, a dragon?? 😱