With Due Respect: Did the Protestants/Catholics remove/add books to the Bible?

If you compare the Bible that the Roman Catholics use and the one that Protestants use, you will notice that the books are slightly different. The seven books excluded in the Protestant Bible are known as the Deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, plus parts of Esther and Daniel).

I have often been asked if the books were removed by the Protestants or added by the Roman Catholics. The truth is much more complicated than that simple answer.

The historicity of the text

Part of the Septuagint but not Hebrew Masoretic Text

The Deuterocanonical books were part of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of Jewish scriptures from the 3rd–2nd century BC, widely used by Hellenistic Jews (Greek Jews) and early Christians. The New Testament frequently quotes or alludes to the Septuagint (e.g., Hebrews 11:35 referencing 2 Maccabees 7), suggesting its authority in the early Church. Catholics saw this as evidence of their inspired status, as the Septuagint was the Bible of the apostolic era.

However, the Protestant Reformers claimed that these books that were not part of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, finalized by Jewish scholars around the 1st century CE. The Deuterocanonical books were not universally accepted by all Jewish communities.

The reception of early Christians
Accepted but universally accepted

Early Church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine cited them as authoritative. Regional councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), included them in their Old Testament canons, reflecting widespread use in liturgy and teaching. Catholics viewed this consistent tradition as affirming their canonicity.

However  some prominent Church writers rejected the Deuterocanonical books. Jerome (347 -420), who translated the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books. In his prefaces to the Vulgate, he noted that these books were not in the Hebrew canon and labeled them "apocryphal," though he included them in his translation at the Church’s request. For example, in his preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings, he listed the Hebrew canon as authoritative but acknowledged the Church’s use of the Deuterocanonical books for edification, not doctrine.

Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373) was also sceptical of the books. In his 39th Festal Letter (367), which lists the canonical books, Athanasius excluded the Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament canon, though he included Baruch and omitted Esther. He considered the others "useful for instruction" but not on par with inspired scripture.

The theology of it all
Deuterocanonical books affirm Catholic practices 

The Deuterocanonical books supported doctrines central to Catholic theology. For example, 2 Maccabees 12:44–46 endorses prayers for the dead, aligning with Catholic beliefs in purgatory and intercession. Wisdom 2:12–20 contains messianic imagery that Catholics saw as prefiguring Christ.

The Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546) formally reaffirmed the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture, standardizing the canon to counter Protestant claims and defend Catholic doctrine. 

On the other hand, the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (scripture alone) emphasized a clear, authoritative canon as the sole basis for doctrine. Reformers sought to streamline the Bible to texts they believed were indisputably inspired, excluding those with debated or uncertain status to avoid reliance on tradition, which they associated with Catholic authority.

Conclusion
The Roman Catholics included the Deuterocanonical books because they were found in the Septuagint. They see the books as NOT an addition but a codification of a long-standing tradition.

The Protestant Reformers did not see the exclusion of the books as a removal, but an attempt to have a pure Jewish canon determined in Hebrew

My Confession: Reflections on Job 15

 

I continue my reflections on Job.

After hearing Job defend himself yet again, Eliphaz the Temanite responds.

The meaninglessness of Job's defence

Eliphaz accuses Job of engaging in empty rhetoric.

“Would a wise person answer with empty notions
    or fill their belly with the hot east wind?
 Would they argue with useless words,
    with speeches that have no value?" - Job 15: 2-3

He criticises Job's wisdom and claiming that Job's limited experience of a human limits his understanding of God.

“Are you the first man ever born?
    Were you brought forth before the hills?
 Do you listen in on God’s council?
    Do you have a monopoly on wisdom?
What do you know that we do not know?
    What insights do you have that we do not have?
 The gray-haired and the aged are on our side,
    men even older than your father."- Job 15: 7-10

Eliphaz puts forth his wisdom on the consequence of good and evil

Eliphaz then explains his position.

“What are mortals, that they could be pure,
    or those born of woman, that they could be righteous?" - Job 15: 14

“Listen to me and I will explain to you;
    let me tell you what I have seen,
 what the wise have declared,
    hiding nothing received from their ancestors
 (to whom alone the land was given when no foreigners moved among them):
All his days the wicked man suffers torment,
    the ruthless man through all the years stored up for him." - Job 15: 17 -20

In fact, he reiterated that the wicked will face punishment.

"Let him not deceive himself by trusting what is worthless,
    for he will get nothing in return.
 Before his time he will wither,
    and his branches will not flourish.
He will be like a vine stripped of its unripe grapes,
    like an olive tree shedding its blossoms." - Job 15: 31-33

Impressions

I think my first takeaway is that despite Eliphaz's claim that no mortal has monopoly on wisdom (Job 15:8), he presents his own wisdom to counter Job's earlier arguments. Eliphaz's justification was that Job was not the first man alive or the oldest or had a vast wealth of experience.

Such ad-hoc arguments may be good for a sound bite, but none of what Eliphaz said had any bearing on what Job had discussed before. What had Job done wrong that God allowed the misfortunate of the loss of wealth and the death of his loved ones to fall on him? (Job 12:7-9)

Finally Eliphaz affirms earlier claims (eg: Job 8:2-3)that Job must have done something wicked to deserve such fate. As this did not sway Job the first few times, Eliphaz repeat of the logic reveals that he may lack the wisdom that he felt Job lacked.

This lack of wisdom will eventually be addressed in the next chapters, Job 16-17.

Alternative Culture: Pope Francis and his legacy

Pope Francis passed away on 21 April 2025. He was elected Pope in 2013 (the first South American to be Pope), and had served till his death.

He will likely be remembered as a transformative yet polarizing figure in the Catholic Church. Despite not being Roman Catholic, I want to give my nuance take on his legacy.

The People's Pope? 
Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, he chose the name "Francis" after St Francis of Assisi to indicate his intention to pastor to the poor, the marginalized, and the suffering. 

His 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ was a landmark, framing environmental care as a moral imperative and linking climate change to systemic inequality. With regard to migration, he called for building bridges rather than walls, and also criticized unbridled capitalism.

In addition, he cleaned up the Roman Catholic Church by defrocking high-profile abusers (e.g., Theodore McCarrick) and issuing Vos Estis Lux Mundi (2019) to hold bishops accountable. He also appointed more Cardinals from the Global South to have more representation in the College of Cardinals.

The Establishment's Pope?
Yet many do not see Pope Francis positively. His focus of inclusivity often confused the Christian message. For instance, he famously said “Who am I to judge?” in 2013 regarding gay individuals seeking God. This is weird because homosexuality is explicitly a sin in Roman Catholic doctrine, and also that the pope is given an authority to judge by "having the keys of heaven".

Another concern was the Pope Francis’s warm reception by secular media and world leaders (e.g., his influence at the UN on climate issues) has led some to view him as a pope who courts globalist agendas. He often made political statements that favoured the progressives in Western countries over the conservatives. The Hollywood movie, The Two Popes, even portrayed him very positively without any criticism of his progressive views. 

Furthermore, the cardinals he appointed form the Global South were often seen to be based on sharing of his political views, rather than adherence to theological matters.

His silence on controversial cultural issues in the West (e.g., abortion in political contexts) while emphasizing climate or migration can feel like a strategic alignment with progressive elites, alienating grassroots Catholics who expected a bolder defense of traditional values.

Interfaith meeting in Singapore 2010

My take on Pope Francis

As a Christian with Lutheran/Calvinist leanings, I do not recognise papal authority. Nevertheless, I do see him as a important political figure among Christian circles.

One thing I think he did well was to clean up the image of Christians, and attempt to reach out to the underrepresented. He managed to rally Western leaders to be more compassionate in their policies, especially with regard to immigration and climate change.

Yet, the most important thing I do hold against Pope Francis is that his explicit silence on the suffering of Christians worldwide.

In one example, Francis has spoken broadly about peace and religious freedom, notably during visits to Iraq (2021) and South Sudan (2023), where he met with Christian communities under threat. His interfaith efforts, like the Document on Human Fraternity (2019), aimed to foster dialogue to protect religious minorities. However, his statements often avoid naming specific perpetrators (e.g., Islamic extremism or communist regimes) to preserve diplomatic ties, frustrating those who wanted a more confrontational stance. 

In another example, he endorsed the 2018 Vatican-China agreement on bishop appointments (renewed in 2020 and 2022). Intended to unify China’s underground and state-sanctioned Catholic communities, it was criticized for conceding too much to a regime that persecutes Christians. Figures like Cardinal Joseph Zen accused Francis of betraying China’s faithful for geopolitical leverage, reinforcing the “establishment” critique.

Conclusion
Pope Francis was a great political leader, but a poor pastor. He had an uncancellable platform to bring attention to Christian persecution worldwide, but chose instead on focusing on imaging and tackling on well-established issues like climate change and transparency.

Theology 1.0: What are the differences between the English translations of the Bible?

 

General differences between translations of the Bible

In this post, I will be briefly examine the differences of the English translations of the Bible. I will assume all translators had good intentions to make the Bible as knowable to the general audience, and will not be throwing shade at translations I disagree with. So let me start:

One of the criticisms of the Bible I do agree with is that we have so many English translations of the Bible. In Bible Gateway alone we have over 60 translations in English! In contrast the same website has 13 translations in Chinese, 5 in Italian and 1 in Tamil (as of 20 March 2025).

So why so many English translations?

Same goal but many approaches
Translating Biblical text is not a new thing. The Jews translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek so that Greek-speaking Jews could read and understand the Scriptures. Similarly, English translations pop up to cater to an English-reading audience so that they may personally read the Word of God.

However, English is a relatively young and fluid language. This means the frequency of usage and meaning of words have changed with time. For instance, let us compare how translations of Psalms 23 has changed over time.

As you can see the phrase "I lack nothing" is more in used now than "I shall not want" in 1611.

The issue with all translations
Thus translators will come to an issue. Should they do a word-for-word translation at the cost of making the Bible more difficult to understand for the modern audience? This approach is known as formal equivalence, and it used by the translators who worked on the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New King James Version (NKJV).

Yet another way is to do complete paraphrasing, at the expense of precise wording. This makes the passages easy to read. This is done by the translators who worked on the Message (MSG) and the Good News Translation (GNT).

An alternative is to do a balance between the two earlier approaches. This is known as the dynamic/optimal equivalence. This approach is favoured by the translators who worked on the New International Version (NIV) and New Living Translation (NLT). 

In conclusion
Translations allow people to understand the Word of God and thus grow in their walk with God. However, all translations have their limitations and it is good practice to read various translations (and in different languages if possible). 

For instance, I generally use both the ESV (the one I used most during Bible study) and NIV (the one I use the most in my personal reading). I also have used the NLT during my university days in England, and NSRV (New Standard Revised Version) from my old church.

I also use the Nuova Riveduta (2006) when I read in Italian, and Chinese Union Version with New Punctuation (CUNPSS or CUVMPS) with the simplified script when I read in Chinese.

Source:
Bible Gateway Blog

Wesly Huff

With Due Respect: Was Jesus cruicified in the Sinai Bible?

 

Recently, I came across popular historian and author Billy Carson. Billy Carson has continually claimed that a Bible discovered in Sinai in 1844 does not state that Jesus was crucified. He also claimed that this "Sinai Bible" was more accurate than the King James Bible.

The event of Jesus's death is central to Christianity. 

But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  - 1 Cor 1:23-24

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  - 1 Cor 15:12-14

Thus it is important to examine whether Carson's claim is true.

What is the Sinai Bible?

The Sinai Bible is a misnomer - among scholarly circles it is known as Codex Sinaiticus. As Carson claims, it was dated to 4th century AD, nearly 1200 years before the King James Bible was compiled.

The Codex Sinaiticus consists of the Greek Old Testament, the Greek New Testament, and the Epistles of Barnabus and the Shephard of Hermas. It is considered to be a landmark document, along with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, as it is one of the most complete manuscripts of the Bible.

A translation of Codex Sinaiticus is here, and clearly states that Jesus was crucified.

And they struck his head with a reed, and spit upon him, and bowing the knees they worshipped him. And when they had derided him, they took of from him the purple, and put on him his own clothes. And they led him out to crucify him, - Mark 15:19-20 [Codex Sinaiticus]

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that Billy Carson continues to pursue this claim, and he eventually was called out by Christian theologian, Wesly Huff as since in the reference video below.

For reference

Theology 1.0: How did Christianity come to Ethiopia?

 

After the ascension of Jesus, many early Christians decided to leave Jerusalem to spread the religion. Some Christians eventually came to Ethiopia, but the communities were not significant until the 4th century.

Frumentius and Aedesius, two Syrian Christians, were shipwrecked on the Red Sea coast and taken as slaves to the Aksumite court during the reign of King Ezana. Frumentius gained the trust of the royal family and was eventually freed, becoming a prominent advisor to the young King Ezana. By 330 AD, King Ezana of the Aksumite Empire converted to Christianity. About ten years later, Christianity became the official religion of the Aksumite Empire.

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church itself claims to have been established in 330 AD.

The Nine Saints
During the late 5th century, nine Christians (often called the Syriac Nine Saints, even though most of them were not Syrian) decided to do missions across Ethiopia.  

Theses missions also served as permanent centers of Christian learning in which monks finally began to translate the Bible from Greek and Aramaic into Ethiopic so that Ethiopians could read Scripture for themselves. 

Thus Christianity was no longer a religion for the small percentage of Ethiopians who could read Greek or Aramaic/Syriac, but for all Ethiopians.