Question: One thing that I have often heard about Catholicism is that the Pope had the ability present Divine Revelations that would be acceptable on the level of scripture. Could you discuss some ways in which a Catholic perception of scripture and God’s word differs from Protestant view. Can you also tell us a bit about the 7 books of the Bible that are recognized by Catholicism but not but Protestant?
(Question submitted to Facebook via Drew, a fellow Youth Minister, and someone I respect tremendously for his devout faith to Christ.)
Thanks Drew for these great questions! Yes, let’s talk about the Bible, the book we love because it leads us to our Beloved. Let’s start with a great Catholic teacher from 1,600 years ago. St. Jerome once said, “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” Therefore, if you love Christ, you must learn the scriptures. The Catholic Church (which claims to have started with Jesus and the apostles) loves scripture, prays the scriptures, and has guarded the scriptures for 2,000 years. It was at the Council of Nicea that the Catholic Church compiled all of the first century Gospels and letters into our modern New Testament.
The Church Fathers, those earliest teachers and pastors that Catholics love, also loved the scriptures. They saturated themselves in scripture, and some of the earliest Church fathers even knew the apostles (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp) or were mentored by someone who knew the apostles (Justin the Martyr, Ireneaus). Therefore, (in shocking news for the day), I believe
the Catholic Church is very Bible-centered in its beliefs and practices and has been the main guardian of the Bible historically speaking.
However, I do think we have some work to do in having more Bible studies in our parishes where our members are learning the Bible from the ground level. Evangelical churches are really terrific at this, and we have much to learn from them.
Question: Why are there different lists of Bible books which we call the canon of Scripture?
Thankfully, Protestant and Catholic Christians have the same New Testament, where we encounter Christ and the New Covenant given through his life, death and resurrection. In the Old Testament, we have the same Pentateuch, Psalms, and Prophets yet Protestant Bibles have less historical books and wisdom literature.
1) From a Catholic perspective, Protestant Bibles have 7 missing books that were removed by Martin Luther about 500 years ago. The question should be, why did Martin Luther remove them or move them to the end of the Bible and call them apocrypha (meaning good to read)? And also, why did he move the book of James to the end of the New Testament and called it an ‘epistle of straw?’ Many scholars believe Martin Luther also viewed the book of James as apocrypha, which means he viewed it not as scripture or apostolic but only useful for reading. Lutherans eventually moved James back to its rightful place. However, the other 7 books in the Old Testament have not been moved back yet and are still considered only apocrypha by Protestants.
2) I grew up hearing that Catholics have added books to the Bible. This accusation makes us sound like Mormon Christianity who added the Book of Mormon to their list of infallible books in the 1800s. This myth is very incorrect. From a Catholic perspective, these 7 books were included as scripture by Jesus and the apostles in the Jewish Bible at the time. Protestant scholars are actually open to this possibility and understand that certain books such as 1st and 2nd Maccabees and the book of Wisdom tremendously affected how Jesus thought about the world (particularly, doctrines such as the physical resurrection from the dead for all believers).
3) Another myth I heard was that Jesus never quoted from these books and never had them as included in his Old Testament. From a scholarly perspective, this seems unlikely. I remember reading the book of Judith, and I found something interesting. It is the first time in the Old Testament that you can find a description of hell that sounds like the one Jesus gives. Check it out in Judith 16:17. Again Jesus was influenced by the whole OT and his language was also shaped by it. I even studied these books at evangelical Taylor University because they are so important in understanding the New Testament. Also, the New Testament never explicitly cites books that Martin Luther never removed from the OT such as Ruth and Esther for example.
4) Most Christians around the world accept these 7 books in their Old Testament and all the ancient churches (Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Assyrian Churches of the East, and the Catholic Churches) have had all or most of these books in their Bibles since ancient times. The only ones that do not today are Protestant Churches.
Question: Can the Pope give us Revelation that is on par with Scripture?
1) Simply said, ‘no.’ Catholic Christians believe all revelation was finished with Christ and the apostles. He was the final revelation and the apostles gave us this public revelation from heaven. No Pope, bishop, priest, or parish can add to this public revelation. It was finished when the last of the 12 Apostles breathed his last.
Cardinal Gerhard Meuller, a German Bishop, states the Catholic doctrine bluntly:
“Nobody, even the Pope and a council, has a direct line to the Holy Spirit because they are not receiving a new revelation. There is one revelation, forever given in Jesus Christ and therefore our basis is Holy Scripture… We can say nothing, nor establish a doctrine or an understanding in the Church that is against the words of God in Holy Scripture and the expression of Catholic tradition.” https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-mueller-to-lead-in-europe-germany-must-recover-moral-strength-76325
2) Where Catholics and Protestants disagree is how that original Revelation of Christ and His Church is guarded, protected, explained, and developed. For example, I wrote a post about why I believe the communion of saints is a Biblical idea and that it is perfectly fine to ask someone who has died to pray for us. Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) believe this is not only true but that an ecumenical council has stated that this doctrine is good, true, and non-negotiable. So what many do not understand about the authority of ecumenical councils and the authority of Catholic bishops in union with the Pope is that they are settling things which must be believed by the whole Church.
Catholic Bishops are not apostles writing about the Revelation of God they experienced of Christ, but rather they are acting as referees in the game and calling out false teachings about Christ and His Church. They do this so the rest of us can ‘play the game’ which is the grand adventure of sharing the Gospel with the world, serving the poor, and offering up authentic worship to the Creator, Savior, and King of the Universe.
3) We believe that when an ecumenical council declares a doctrine, it is protected in an infallible manner by the Holy Spirit. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to backtrack on doctrines such as the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the communion of saints and the Eucharist to name a few. There have been 22 councils in the last 2,000 years and the first one was in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. This is one of my favorite councils because it was deemed that it was okay that the Early Church could eat bacon and barbecue (pork)!!!!!! This is a great reason to celebrate! (Catholics believe that these councils continued to happen even after the one in Jerusalem, and it is where most Protestant doctrine was originally developed.)
4) Where Catholics and Protestants ultimately differ is that Catholics believe infallible interpretation is possible.
As Pope Benedict XVI (the Pope before Francis) once said, “Dogma (infallible doctrine) is by definition nothing other than an interpretation of Scripture.”
Dr. Scott Hahn and Scripture scholar further reflects on this quote, “The defined dogmas of our faith, then, encapsulate the Church’s infallible interpretation of Scripture.”
Some Protestants actually function this way though not by belief. For example, Reformed Christians treat the Westminster Confession as a sort of infallible interpretation guide to Scripture. Though they wouldn’t call it infallible, they would admit that they are basically never going to change it, and it is their ‘guardian’ and ‘guide’ for belief. Some independent churches (Baptist, Pentecostal, Non-denominational), the congregants treat their pastor’s interpretation as infallible. For example, I’ve heard some essentially say “my pastor is one of the few in town who preaches the WORD of GOD. Everyone else is believing the traditions of man!” In actuality, that person is simply believing their pastor’s interpretive tradition of scripture over others.’
I will have to write more on the idea of ecumenical councils and why we believe God gave them to us. The short answer is that the Holy Spirit will guide us unto all truth so that Christ’s Church doesn’t chaotically spin out of control, divide itself, and believe false teachings. The Council of Nicea is a good place to start. Thanks Drew!
Drew’s Response: Kyle thank you for a thorough and insightful answer.
Here is my take away:
#1 The additional books of the Old Testament that are recognized by Catholics would be interesting to read and I’m going to do so.
#2 The Catholic Church loves scripture and works passionately to protect its meaning.
#3 I need to eat as much bacon, pulled pork, ribs, ham and pork chops as possible as soon as possible!
Kyle’s Response: Yes! Well said Drew. =)
(Pope Francis honors the Book of the Gospels during worship. The Pope, who is the Bishop of Rome, along with all of the Bishops around the world are the main guardians of the Bible, a divine collection of books that reveal God’s rescue mission to humanity).
Barrel Aged Faith 
Pastor Scott Stine’s response:
Kyle, thanks for sharing your well-reasoned article. I don’t have time to engage every area that deserves engaging, but I’ll just say 3 things: 1. Thanks for sharing, in a respectful manner (we need more of this!); 2. In my studies of the Apocrypha, I’ve come to different conclusions than you about it’s canonicity and I further disagree that it “influenced” Jesus’ thought about the world. i do believe he read it and knew it (as he was sovereign God who ruled that those books exist), but I don’t think the goal of those books is to be canonical. 3. It seems to me striking that the Apocrypha was never quoted in the NT.
I wrote a paper on the Apocrypha last year for a class that if I can track it down perhaps I’ll share it (or just read through it and then give the salient points!)
Thanks again.
Kyle King’s Response:
HI Scott, real quick on our methodology concerning canonization.
1) scholars agree that the canon was open during Jesus’ day. There had been no Jewish council until 90ad after the temple was destroyed and rabbinical Judaism began. Therefore, it is difficult to be 100% conclusive on what was thought as the revelation from God to 1st century Jews. We can only point to evidences on how they thought and how Jesus speaks. We can certainly say the pentatuech, the Psalms, and the prophets but when it comes to wisdom and historical literature as a whole such as Esther (never quoted by Jesus) or the book of Wisdom (likely influenced Jesus greatly as cited by many scholars) it becomes a bit more murky.
2) Your claim that Jesus was familiar with all works of literature during his incarnation because he was God is likely not true. He probably could not quote sages from the far East Asia because he wasn’t familiar with their works. During the incarnation, Jesus grew in knowledge which means he was limited (Philippians 2, kenosis, poured himself out). Therefore, it is important to establish that he did not reject these books but saw them as authentic witnesses of Yahweh still working in Israel through protection and prophetic utterances. The Protestant gap theory that God was silent for 400 years seems a bit odd and a late invention to reject these books.
3) In John, Jesus celebrates the feast of the dedication of the temple also known as hannakah. No surprise! JESUS is Jewish and the events in 1 Macabees are celebrated by him. This goes beyond influence and actually affects the liturgical celebrations of Jews and Jesus himself. Again, this is as far scholarship can go. To say canonical or not is left up to the Holy Spirit working through the authority of the Church.
4) The New Testament authors almost always quote from the Septuagint (greek) translation of the Old Testament. It has been demonstrated by scholars and archeological evidence that the Greek versions included these 7 books as part of their canon.
5) the biblical authors allude to events in the 7 books such as the author of Hebrews in chapter 11. Some sought more torture in search of a greater resurrection. This is 2nd Macabees. Our protestant brothers and sisters would not catch this allusion unless they read these books.
6) even if these 7 books were removed as canonical, it doesn’t really affect Catholic theology all that much because the interpretation of the Bible also includes historical and cultural context. This is why we can use bible background info to interpret scripture and why women do not wear headcoverings to our churches anymore. Historical sources guide interpretation. This is why at the very least Martin Luther left these books in the Bible and called them profitable for reading because they have wisdom, testify to real events, and certainly shaped Jesus thinking
Catholic scholar Trent Horn also adds.”People opposed to the Deuterocanon love to bring up Jerome but curiously, he is the only Father one who really objected and he eventually submitted to the judgment of the Church. He was motivated by a principle he proposed called Hebrew Verity, i.e., that the Hebrew version of the Old Testament he had was the only standard to translate from, and the Septuagint variations were just errors but in this he was wrong: The Septuagint represented several valid textual traditions as we discovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Also, let’s add the important role of the church councils through history. “The Canon was disputed by many up until it was canonized.Jerome and Cyril were influenced by the Jerusalem Church which wanted to keep everything as Jewish as possible. The Jerusalem Church was in fact the only Church that accepted the Palestinian versus the Alexandrian Old Testament Canon. It is also important to note that various Churches didn’t recognize the entire New Testament.Some of the far Eastern Churches, like the Armenians, rejected:
Revelation, andthe epistles of John . . . or at least some of them. So while we certainly respect the work of Jerome, the work of the Council takes precedent. The first was the Council of Rome in 382 A.D which canonized the Scriptures and which Augustine quotes some years later. Subsequently, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage confirmed the very same Canon that has been recognized by the Church ever since.”
My whole point is this… real Biblical and historical scholarship vindicates the decisions of the Catholic Church concerning debates around the canon. Protestants also make good points for their canon arguments. The problem arises when love and humility are abandoned and Catholics are accused of adding books the Bible because of course we hate God, Christ, and the ending of the book of Revelation. We should in conclusion be more patient with each other. This blog post by Kevin Delong flippantly acts like we added books 500 years ago when it can be demonstrated that we had these books in most of our churches from around the world.
Pastor Scott Stine’s Response:
Kyle,
Thanks for, through your thoughtful analysis, driving me back to my research! I saw your post last night, and got in my notes and papers to just refresh my mind on these topics. I struggle to keep it fresh when there’s so much to study! That said, forgive the length of this post.
Contrary to the view that scholarship agrees that the canon was open during Jesus’ day, my studies have revealed the opposite. At the risk of loading this conversation up with data, five strands of evidence suffice for me:
1) Jesus referred to a 3-fold division of the Scriptures (Luke 24 Law, Prophets, and Psalms, the last of which was shorthand for the wisdom literature, employing a common Jewish rabbinical practice). Further when he speaks of “the blood of Abel to Zechariah being accounted to this generation” (Matt 23), he seems to be appealing to a Biblical canon that goes from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Chronicles (2 Chron. 24:20-21), which is how the TNK is organized from front to back.
2) Josephus is decidedly clear in his writings that the Canon is set, enumerating a 3-fold division of the Scriptures, and saying no more inspired books have been written since Artaxerxes’ reign (during Malachi). (Against Apion).
3) Babylonian Talmud (Yomah) taught that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and thus couldn’t inspire any more Scripture, in keeping with Peter’s assertion that Scripture is only inspired by the HS, at the end of 2 Peter 1.
4) The council of 90ad to which you refer, the Council of Jamnia, instead of naming the close of a canonical period, appears to be a telling example of the prevailing belief that the canon had already been closed.
5) The Apocryphal books themselves seem to betray an awareness that the Hebrew Scriptures are the only Scriptures that exist. Ecclesiasticus’ prologue speaks of the Law, the Prophets, and “others,” which could be many things, but could mean the Wisdom literature. And 1 Mac. 4:45-46, 9:27, and 14:42 all give examples of the people longing for a prophet to speak and give the next word from God. But there were no prophets, as there were all throughout the Old Testament days. This is why Malachi ends saying that the next thing that happens will be Elijah coming to prepare the way for the Lord. This is why Protestants don’t the think 400 year break is an invention, but a necessary inference based on how the last prophet spoke.
As I’ve studied the Fathers, it seems that the data isn’t as clear-cut as it is often asserted. One thing is clear: Melito’s Canon list, made in 170, did not include the Apocrypha at all. The fathers of the 3rd century (who are usually cited for proof that the fathers held the Apocrypha on par with Scripture) should not be considered more weighty than this list made in the second century (and I’m aware we may disagree on this point).
You mentioned that Hebrews 11 alludes to events from 2 Macabees. But the fact that that is in the section of the chapter that doesn’t give hard and fast names, while the rest of the chapter does, seems to actually strengthen the view that the Apocrypha, with its important historical and cultural contributions, wasn’t viewed at that time as on par with Scripture. Just alluding to a historical event doesn’t give it the weight of inspired authenticity – in fact, the context seems to lean the opposite direction.
Finally, (and I’m being cryptic, as my research has turned up much more than I’m sharing, which I don’t say because I think that will intimidate a highly intelligent man like yourself, but because I want to show the most important of the great weight of arguments that have convinced me of a view which opposes yours), we should consider that Athanasius’ Canon list at 362 listed the Apocryphal books but was clear that they are not themselves Scriptural like the rest of the books. Both Rome at 382 and Carthage at 397 affirmed, contra Athanasius (as he was used to standing alone in an ancient church that struggled to figure out what it believed!), the Apocryphal books alongside Scripture. But of course this is where our methodologies veer apart: I think the councils could have erred. And I think this because of the reasons listed above and because of one more reason in particular: the text of the Apocryphal books themselves betray a lack of self-authenticating authority. Sirach (wisdom) begins with “please forgive any mistakes” and 2 Maccabees says at the end that that the book may have been poor quality. That is decidedly different than how true Christian Scripture speaks.
I know we won’t come to an agreement on this. But the Protestant Reformation wasn’t about working out differences (although that was Luther’s initial goal), but about taking hold of a Biblical Theological approach that defines our theology and methodology in light of the Old and New Testaments. The reason Protestants don’t believe the Apocrypha is Scripture is because they think both Testaments themselves exclude the Apocrypha. Church tradition could have erred from time to time – but the Apostles themselves seem very clear in their view of the Canonicity of the Apocryphal books: negative.
Thanks for your thoughts and consideration.
Paul Nichols Response: This is a huge topic – here is a very long and pretty scholarly argument against apocryphal inclusions https://www.blueletterbible.org/…/don_stewart_395.cfm
Kyle’s Response to Paul Nichols: Thanks for sharing!
1) I find the the latter half of the article a bit more helpful in dealing with Athanasius, Jerome, and other figures. The first half of the article though uses a bit of circular reason…”we cannot include these books because they disagree with my doctrine.” Isn’t our doctrine supposed to be constructed from the canon? =)
2) The beginning of the article tries to shatter the credibility of the books by stating that they advocated for a grace vs works type of salvation. This is a false dichotomy tackled by many Protestant scholars and the tension exists in the New Testament itself. Does helping the poor and relating it to our salvation actually contradict the New Testament or Jesus? I am not convinced for our Lord himself said (paraphrased) “did you see me thirsty and give me a drink? see me naked a cloth me? Go into my Father’s Kingdom” (Matthew 25). His grace empowers us to walk a life to good works (Ephesians 2). Everything is grace… our faith, hope, and love in action (good works).
3) The article makes a mistake in claiming that St Jerome advocating for one view (against 7 books in cannon), died, and than they were added later. St Jerome in his own life admits that he is now following the judgement of the church in now including the 7 books. Here is his full quote:
“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).”
4) It appears that the Church Fathers did not have complete consensus on the OT canon though no one was completely against the 7 books. Even though St Athanasius’ canon list excludes them, he can be found in his writings quoting them and calling them ‘scripture.’ He actually contradicts himself in his own writings =) This should humble any of us. I really don’t get to worked up about it. Whether canonical or not, the 7 books hold authentic Jewish teaching that helps us interpret the New Testament and the life of Jesus, which makes them valid in understanding the life and world of the Jewish Jesus. For example: Jesus celebrated Hanukkah (Dedication of the Temple) and those events are told in the Maccabean accounts. We also see Jesus celebrating this holiday by traveling to celebrate it at the Temple in the Gospel of John. “The Festival of Dedication then took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon’s portico” (John 10:22-23″