Why do Catholics and Protestants have different books in their Bibles?

Catholics and Protestants have the same 27 book New Testament. However, if one was to look at the Old Testament you'd notice a couple of differences. In short, Catholics have 46 books in their Old Testament while Protestants have 39. Why is this and does it matter?

[CPATuttle]

If Catholics added books. Then when did the Orthodox add the books?

[fantasia]

Luther removed seven book and tried to remove another four books, because they disagreed with his new theology.

[WCisBetterThanReforged]

It is a misnomer to say the ancient Jews did not consider them scripture. There was no set Jewish canon. The apocrypha/Deuterocanon were in the Septuagint which was used by Greek speaking Jews including the Apostles. The Masoretes set the modern Rabbinic Judaism canon but that was not until the 9th Century AD. John Calvin Suggested removing the books. Some Protestants kept them, some did not. It was not until the 1800s that removal became commonplace.

To clarify, dogmas are used to clearly define a Church teaching. They function much like Supreme Court rulings in the US and are generally not issued unless someone challenges a doctrine. Just because something is not dogmatically defined does not mean it is not a doctrine or widely held belief. I think the fact that the Deuterocanon was not dogmatically defined until Trent actually speaks more to the historical agreement on the canon than the controversy.

[brianfarley]

History of Catholic Bible.

597 B.C., the kingdom of Judah became a Babylonian province. The Babylonian Captivity (587 B.C.) resulted in certain selected Jews (i.e., those considered a threat to Babylonian supremacy) being deported to Greek-speaking lands. The Jews in exile (called the Diaspora, the scattering) eventually forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. But their Scriptures were in Hebrew. To solve this problem a translation was made in Alexandria (Egypt) from Hebrew into Greek beginning c. B.C. 250, completed about 130 B.C. This translation was called the Greek Septuagint and was widely accepted by Jews, both in Hebrew and Greek speaking areas.
The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) was used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The Church inherited 49 writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She later canonized these same 49 writings and named them the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage 397 and 419). Pope Innocent I restated the canon in 405. At the very same Councils, the New Covenant writings were selected and canonized and named the New Testament. Then the collection of Old Covenant sacred writings were put together with the collection of New Covenant writings and the entire collection was named “ta Biblia” – the Bible. The Catholic Church was then nearly 400 years old. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church!
Facts:
1. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles were the LXX. For example, Jesus reads from the Septuagint in a synagogue and calls it ‘Scripture’ in Luke 4:14-21.
2. The Scriptures of all the sacred writers of the New Testament were the LXX. Of about 350 quotations from the OT in the NT, 300 are from the LXX. The NT writers used both the Hebrew and the Greek, were partial to the Greek, and obviously considered both to be the Word of God.
3. The LXX was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world.
As you can see from the Scriptures adopted at the Council of Rome, the so-called “apocrypha” were not added later, and were considered Scripture right along with Matthew, Mark, and Isaiah.
Catholics call Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther (10:4-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14) “deuterocanoncal.” That’s a technical word used by scholars meaning “second canon.” In reality, there was only one canon. The deuterocanon refers to those books and passages of the Old AND New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Some writings received general acceptance earlier, some later. The NT “deuterocanonical” writings are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. Among Protestants, the deuterocanonical books of the OT are rejected, along with the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel.

[nickswicegood]

Using the argument that even though Florence acknowledged all the books they hadn’t defined them dogmatically as being canonical, couldn’t the same be said of the New Testament at that time? Wasn’t it at Trent that the the 27 books of the New Testament were also dogmatically defined?

[GGM]

I think Taylor Marshall has a video on this. If the seven books are not important, the apostles would not have used it in their preaching.

[Ryan-nvdz]

The Catholic Church doesn’t worship the Saints…🤦‍♂️

[levibarros]

He left out the fact that many Jews during our Lord's time on the earth accepted the deuterocanon. It was still being debated among Jews even after Christ's ascension. The Pharisees were primarily the ones who rejected the deuterocanon, which is probably one of the reasons the apostles preferred the Septuagint OT (which contains the deuterocanon) over the masoretic. In the new testament, the masoretic text is only quoted 33 times while the Septuagint is quoted 340. Another win for traditional Christianity over Protestantism.

❤

[timcooper]

lost all credibility when he lied and said that protestants didn't remove books from the Bible. All Bibles from the Vulgate to luther had the entire Bible.

[ancienthistoryfanatic]

This fascinating!
Do you have a video explaining/comparing the history of the Ethiopian Bible's 88 books?

[paulomoonjeli]

the Council of Rome(382A.D.), which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

[voxangeli]

Let's simplify the point of contention: if you subscribe to the 39 books of the Old Testament, then you are subscribing to the authority of the Pharisees who crucified Christ.

If you subscribe to the 46 books of the Old Testament, then you are subscribing to the authority of the Early Church which comes from the authority of the Apostles, the new Jewish authority in the New Testament, because the Apostles themselves are Jews.

Question: to whom do you want to subscribe to?

[captainmarvel]

This channel author unfortunately needs to do more research.

[Christ__is__King]

You literally said Catholics worship saints. Unless you misspoke, your credibility is severely damaged. Why do you accept the authority of the Catholic Church on the New Testament canon, but not the Old Testament? Please find a list identical to the Protestant canon in the early church. You won't. On the other hand, you will find the Catholic canon in the early church.

[Ryan-nvdz]

I’m glad this video admits that early Jewish writings before Jesus can be used as proof texts for purgatory and intercessory prayers

[dougmoore]

Only some of Jews felt that way, others did so. The reformation leadership felt agreement with those rabbi’s not the others. And so Protestant bibles were printed without those books. So simple, but true indeed. Those rabbi’s met during the early Christian period and for the first time set Jewish canon. But at the time of Christ the was no canon as such. So the scripture that the apostles knew was the Greek Septuagint witch included the books left out of the later Protestant bibles. Including more the a few references in all out New Testaments. Very confusing in modern times. Even the best informed Protestant folks struggle with explanations of this issue. Because it supported the doctrines they favored.

[adamcolejones]

Thanks Wes,
Can you tell me which writings from the popes and cardinals led you to say in the video that they agreed with the 66 book canon? A little after the 5 minutes mark in your video.

[robynbeach]

This is EXTREMELY disingenuous under a very thin guise of so called "fairness." First off you flat out accuse Catholics of "worshipping" the saints, which is strictly forbidden in the Catechism and has been for 2000 years. Secondly there were different factions of Judaism in Jesus' time with different cannons of Scripture. The only faction that didn't see the Duetrocannonical books as scripture were the Pharisees because they ONLY saw the Torah as scripture. You also forgot to mention how every single one of the Church Fathers (canonized Catholic Saints) that you mentioned, conceded to the counsels and accepted the Duetrocannon! Including Saint Jerome who devoted his entire life to compiling and translating the Latin Vulgate, which is still to this day the official Bible and the text that most Bibles, both Catholic and protestant, including KJV are based on. You also neglected to mention that those weren't the only books that Martin Luther attempted to remove from the Bible. He also attempted to remove James, Hebrews, Revelation, and all the epistles of John! He even said that he wished he could throw "Jimmy" (Apostle Saint James) into the fire! He did these things for the exact same reason that he took it upon himself to remove the Duetrocannon and parts of Esther and Daniel from the original Bible. Because the beliefs of the ancient Jews and original Christians weren't what he wanted to believe, and he saw himself as a higher authority than God himself! Just read the multitude of books he published. You can start with "The Jews and Their Lies!" That'll let you know what he thought of Jewish teaching!

[yeetus_reetus_deeleetus]

the apostles cited the Septuagint (the ones with deteurocanon) much more than the Masoretic texts, and with the apostles acknowledging that "all scripture is God inspired" I'm sticking with the books of the apostles.

[sptomase]

The Bible was canonized at the council of Rome in 382. It wasn’t ’up for debate’. It was a done deal. I’ll also add Martin Luther also wanted to remove the Gospel of James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation but his followers convinced him he was going too far, and I understand it he wasn’t even sure.