Responding to Catholic Apologetics Claims About the Canon and Translation of the Bible

Christian Publishing House

3 months ago

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Catholic apologetics often asserts that the Roman Catholic Church is the rightful authority that determined the biblical canon and preserved Scripture, and thus has the ultimate interpretive authority. This claim is frequently paired with an attack on Protestant translations and the principle of sola scriptura. This article critically examines these assertions through the lens of biblical translation philosophy, textual history, and the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. While acknowledging the role of early church history, we will demonstrate that the authority of Scripture precedes ecclesiastical decisions and that literal translation—faithful to the inspired original texts—provides the only valid foundation for discerning God’s Word.

The Canon Did Not Originate With the Catholic Church

Catholic apologists regularly argue that the canon of Scripture was determined at the Councils of Hippo (393 C.E.) and Carthage (397 C.E., 419 C.E.), implying that without the Catholic Church, Christians would not know which books are Scripture. However, this is a flawed historical and theological claim.

First, Scripture is authoritative because it is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), not because a church body declared it so. The recognition of canonical books was a process of discovery, not invention. The early church received the books of the Old and New Testaments based on apostolic authority, prophetic origin, and doctrinal consistency. The church fathers did not grant authority to these books—they acknowledged what was already evident. As Edward D. Andrews emphasizes, “God’s Word carried authority from the moment of its inspiration, not from later ecclesiastical sanction.”

Second, the true canon of the Hebrew Bible—commonly referred to as the Old Testament—was already established by the time of Jesus. He and the apostles regularly quoted from the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (cf. Luke 24:44), reflecting the tripartite Jewish canon. There is no evidence that Jesus or His disciples ever cited the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. These books (e.g., Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees) were not part of the Hebrew canon and were written during the intertestamental period, after the close of Old Testament prophecy (Malachi c. 443 B.C.E.).

The Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex Contain Only 24 Books (Our 39 Books)

This recognition of the true Old Testament canon is confirmed by the earliest and most authoritative manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible. Both the Aleppo Codex (10th century C.E.) and the Leningrad Codex (dated 1008 C.E.) reflect the 24-book canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, which corresponds exactly to the Protestant 39-book Old Testament, differing only in arrangement and division. For example, the Twelve Minor Prophets are grouped as one book; so are 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra–Nehemiah. These codices are not late fabrications but preserve the authoritative Masoretic Text (MT), which is the providentially preserved textual tradition used for serious Old Testament translation work. No Apocryphal books appear in these codices. Their exclusion from the codified Jewish canon further confirms their non-canonical status.

The Apocrypha and Its Exclusion from the Canon

The Roman Catholic Church officially canonized the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent in 1546 C.E., in reaction to the Protestant Reformation. This decision was not the continuation of an unbroken tradition but a theological and polemical move to bolster doctrines lacking biblical foundation—such as purgatory, prayer for the dead, and the efficacy of meritorious works.

The Apocrypha, preserved in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), does not possess the characteristics of inspired Scripture. The historical inaccuracies, doctrinal errors, and fictional elements within books like Tobit and Judith disqualify them. For example, Tobit 6:5–8 promotes magical practices, and Judith portrays Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians—an egregious historical error (Judith 1:1). Such content stands in contrast to the inerrant Word of God.

Moreover, Jewish scholars at the Council of Jamnia (c. 90 C.E.) rejected the Apocrypha as canonical. Even early Christian scholars such as Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate, excluded these books from the canon, classifying them as ecclesiastical but not Scriptural. Jerome’s original prefaces to the Vulgate make this clear, although the Catholic Church later overrode this distinction. Thus, the Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha is consistent with both Jewish tradition and early Christian scholarship.

Josephus and Jerome Rejected the Apocrypha

Support for the rejection of the Apocrypha also comes from key historical voices. Flavius Josephus, a 1st-century Jewish historian, testifies in Against Apion (Book 1, §8) that the Jewish Scriptures consisted of 22 books—a count harmonizing with the Hebrew Bible’s 24-book canon by combining Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah. He explicitly notes that no additional books had been added since the time of Artaxerxes (i.e., Malachi), indicating that divine revelation had ceased. Josephus writes, “From Artaxerxes to our own time, all the events have been recorded, but they have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records.”

Likewise, Jerome, the chief translator of the Latin Vulgate (late 4th century), firmly rejected the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. In his prefaces to the books of the Old Testament, he consistently stated that the church should follow the Hebrew canon and that the deuterocanonical books were useful for reading but not for establishing doctrine. He writes, “Whatever is not found in our [Hebrew] list must be set aside among the apocryphal writings.” Jerome’s stance directly contradicts later Catholic dogma but aligns fully with the historical canon accepted by Jews and affirmed by Christ and the apostles.

The Role of the Septuagint and Misuse in Catholic Apologetics

Catholic defenders frequently appeal to the Septuagint (LXX) to support the inclusion of the Apocrypha. While the LXX was widely used in the early church, particularly among Greek-speaking Jews, its form was not fixed. Various versions of the LXX existed with different contents. The presence of Apocryphal books in some manuscripts does not establish their canonical status.

Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint when it faithfully represented the Hebrew text, but never cited the Apocryphal books as “Scripture” or introduced them with formulas such as “it is written.” Notably, when Jesus affirmed “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (Matt. 23:35), He was referring to the canonical boundaries of the Hebrew Scriptures—Genesis to Chronicles—not the Apocrypha.

Textual Transmission and the Reliability of the Critical Text

Another point of attack by Catholic apologists involves the textual base of Protestant Bibles. While the Catholic Church traditionally used the Latin Vulgate, the Reformation returned to the Hebrew and Greek originals. Today, textual criticism has produced a critically restored Greek New Testament (e.g., NA28, UBS5) that reflects the Alexandrian textual tradition, supported by the earliest and most reliable manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (א), and papyri such as 𝔓^66 and 𝔓^75.

The 2022 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) represents a model of literal translation that relies on this critical text. Unlike the Vulgate, which introduced Latin-based translational shifts and theological glosses, the UASV aims to reproduce the exact meaning of the inspired Hebrew and Greek, preserving grammatical forms and lexical precision.

This method of translation is fundamentally different from dynamic equivalence or paraphrastic versions, which filter the text through theological interpretation. Literal translation allows Scripture to speak with its own authority and preserves the force, directness, and clarity of God’s Word. Catholic translations, such as the New American Bible (NAB), often insert interpretive glosses aligned with church dogma (e.g., rendering “kecharitōmenē” in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” to support Marian doctrines), violating the grammatical structure and historical usage of the Greek.

Authority of Scripture vs. Authority of the Church

The Roman Catholic position places tradition and magisterial interpretation alongside—or above—Scripture. This contradicts the biblical pattern. The Bereans were commended for testing Paul’s message against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), not for submitting to an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Scripture is repeatedly described as the final authority: “All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching…” (2 Tim. 3:16–17), “Your word is truth” (John 17:17), and “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

The Catholic notion that the “Church gave us the Bible” is both historically inaccurate and theologically inverted. The early church received the Scriptures. God gave His Word through prophets and apostles, and the church recognized it. The authority is intrinsic to the text, not bestowed by ecclesial decree. As Edward D. Andrews notes, the principle of sola scriptura rests on the inerrancy, sufficiency, and perspicuity of Scripture—its ability to communicate clearly and truthfully what God has revealed.

The Medieval Suppression of Scripture and the Latin Vulgate Monopoly

Roman Catholic apologetics frequently points to the Latin Vulgate as proof of the Church’s role in preserving the Scriptures, yet history tells a darker story. For nearly a thousand years—especially from the 5th century through the 15th—the Catholic Church withheld God’s Word from the common people by confining it to Latin, a language unknown to the vast majority of Europe’s population.

The Latin Vulgate became the exclusive version used in liturgy and theological education, even as Latin ceased to be a spoken language among the laity. The Church forbade translation of the Bible into the vernacular under threat of excommunication and execution. Men such as John Wycliffe and William Tyndale, who sought to give the Bible to the common people in English, were branded heretics. Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 for translating the Bible into English—his crime: making God’s Word accessible.

This restriction was not to protect the purity of the text but to consolidate ecclesiastical power. The hierarchical Church feared the consequences of allowing the laity to read and interpret Scripture for themselves, particularly as such readings often contradicted church doctrine. This is fundamentally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic era, in which Scriptures were publicly read, widely distributed, and translated into common languages from the earliest days of the church (Acts 2:6–11; Col. 4:16).

This historical suppression further demonstrates the need for literal translations into every tongue—not filtered through ecclesiastical traditions but derived directly from the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts.

Rejection of Liberal Critical Methods and Doctrinal Compromise

Catholic biblical scholarship has often embraced higher criticism, historical-critical methods, and liberal theology. These approaches reject the full trustworthiness of Scripture, viewing it as a fallible human product. The Documentary Hypothesis, form criticism, and redaction criticism—all mainstays in modern Catholic academia—undermine the integrity of the text and its divine origin.

This contrasts starkly with evangelical scholarship rooted in the historical-grammatical method, which honors the original intent of the authors in their historical context, grounded in the belief that God has spoken through real events and words. Translation efforts grounded in this method reject the allegorical and typological overlays common in Catholic exegesis, focusing instead on what the text actually says.

Conclusion: The Canon Is Fixed, the Text Is Reliable, and the Translation Must Be Literal

The biblical canon was not created by the Roman Catholic Church. It was recognized by faithful believers based on divine authorship and internal coherence. The Apocrypha has no rightful place in the canon and was only officially declared Scripture by Rome in the 16th century as a defensive measure against the Reformation. Catholic translation philosophy is often doctrinally driven and insufficiently literal, failing to faithfully convey the inspired words of the original texts.

Faithful translation demands a return to the authoritative Hebrew and Greek texts, rendered with maximal literalness, grammatical fidelity, and theological neutrality. The UASV model reflects this approach, standing in contrast to translations distorted by tradition or ecclesiastical bias. Only by honoring what God actually said through His inspired prophets and apostles can we preserve the truth of Scripture and equip believers to walk faithfully with Him.

Canon Formation and Authority of Scripture

Scripture is authoritative by inspiration, not ecclesiastical declaration (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
The canon was discovered, not created, by early believers based on prophetic/apostolic origin and doctrinal consistency.
Jesus affirmed the tripartite Hebrew canon—Law, Prophets, Writings (Luke 24:44)—not any expanded canon including Apocrypha.
The Council of Carthage (397 C.E.) only confirmed what was already widely accepted; it did not create the canon.
Protestant 39-book Old Testament corresponds to the 24-book Hebrew canon, confirming continuity with Jewish Scripture.

The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals Are Not Inspired Scripture

The Apocryphal books were never part of the Hebrew canon, rejected by Jews and by Jesus.
Apocrypha contains doctrinal and historical errors, e.g., Judith 1:1 misplaces Nebuchadnezzar, Tobit endorses magic.
No Apocryphal books are quoted in the New Testament as Scripture—none introduced with “it is written” or “Scripture says.”
Council of Trent (1546 C.E.) added the Apocrypha as a reactionary move against the Reformation, not due to longstanding tradition.
Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate, explicitly rejected the Apocrypha as canonical, though later Catholicism overrode his stance.
Josephus (1st century Jewish historian) affirmed a 22-book canon, aligned with the Hebrew Scriptures and excluding the Apocrypha.
Council of Jamnia (c. 90 C.E.) confirmed closure of Hebrew canon, excluding post-Malachi writings.

Textual and Manuscript Evidence

The Masoretic Text (MT) is the providentially preserved Hebrew OT base, not the Greek Septuagint.
The Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex contain the same 24 books as the Hebrew canon, confirming Jewish and Protestant canons.
Apocryphal books are absent from these authoritative Hebrew manuscripts.
Early Septuagint manuscripts vary in content, and inclusion of Apocrypha in some copies does not prove canonicity.

Catholic Suppression of the Bible in the Middle Ages

The Roman Catholic Church restricted Bible access by locking Scripture in Latin (Vulgate) for 1,000+ years.
Vernacular translations were banned and considered heresy; the laity was forbidden from reading Scripture.
Translators like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale were persecuted and executed for making Scripture available to the people.
Latin Vulgate became an instrument of control, not accessibility—contrary to the early Church’s multilingual Scripture dissemination (Acts 2:6–11).

Translation Philosophy: Literal vs. Doctrinally Filtered

Catholic translations often insert doctrinal bias (e.g., “full of grace” in Luke 1:28) to support church teachings not found in the original text.
Literal translation from the Hebrew and Greek is essential for preserving God’s intended meaning—this is the foundation of the UASV model.
Interpretive glosses in dynamic translations (like the NAB) distort the inspired grammar and lexical meaning.
The goal of translation is fidelity to what God said—not what the Church interprets it to mean.

Church vs. Scripture: Final Authority

The Bible teaches that Scripture is the final authority, not church tradition or magisterial declarations (Acts 17:11; 1 Cor. 4:6).
Sola scriptura is rooted in the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture—God’s Word is self-authenticating and understandable.
Church councils only recognized what God had already inspired, and cannot add to it.
Tradition and magisterium have introduced doctrines not found in Scripture, such as indulgences, purgatory, Marian dogmas, and papal infallibility.

Rejection of Liberal Theology and Historical-Critical Methods

Catholic biblical scholarship has embraced higher criticism, undermining belief in the inerrancy and unity of Scripture.
Documentary Hypothesis, form criticism, and redaction criticism treat the Bible as man-made, which contradicts inspiration.
Evangelical literal translation is based on the historical-grammatical method, which honors the text’s divine origin and historical context.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS