Why Did the Catholic Church Add Books to the Bible?

English Bible

I often get asked the question, “why did the Catholic Church add books to the Bible?” We hope to do more posts on the canonization process of Scripture, but for the moment, I thought I would respond to this question with a brief post.

This question often comes to me from Protestants who assume that Christians always had a Bible that matched a modern Protestant Bible: 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. Since Catholic Bibles include 46 books in the Old Testament (but likewise share the same 27 book New Testament with Protestants), those asking me this question often assume that the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Old Testament at some point in the medieval period. These 7 books Catholics refer to as deuterocanonical (second canon), whereas Protestants often refer to them as apocryphal (hidden books, i.e., books that do not belong). These books are: 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch. 

With such assumptions often present, this question misunderstands the actual history. Of course on the face of it, it is true that the Catholic Church “added” books to the Bible—-in the sense that the list of which books belong in the Bible (i.e., the canon) developed over time, and the Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit, we believe) determined the

Hebrew Old Testament

final form of this canon.

But to set the record straight, the first list of books that matches a Protestant Bible cannot be found anywhere in history—as far as I am aware—prior to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. And even then, Protestant Reformers often did not include all of the books our contemporary Protestants use. For example, Martin Luther initially doubted the canonical status of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. And while Luther had much praise for the Old Testament deuterocanonical book Judith (which he did not believe to be inspired by God, but which he thought Christians should read), he often criticized other biblical books found in Protestant Old Testaments including Esther and Jonah. The famous Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli doubted that Revelation belonged in the New Testament. John Calvin, who never wrote a commentary on Revelation, also had concerns over its canonical status. 

Prior to the Reformation, all Christian biblical canons either excluded books from the Old Testament that Protestants (and Catholics, and Orthodox) consider inspired, like Esther—-or, they excluded some of the 27 New Testament books that Protestants (and Catholics, and Orthodox) consider inspired, like 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—-or, they included some or all of the 7 deuterocanonical books that Catholics (and Orthodox) include in their Bibles. There are no Bibles (nor lists of biblical books) that have the complete 27 New Testament books and all 39 Old Testament books in Protestant Bibles, but which exclude the 7 deuterocanonicals. 

Greek New Testament

The first list of 27 New Testament books comes from St. Athanasius’ 39th Festal Letter of 367 A.D. But, while he excludes the book of Esther from his canon, he includes Wisdom of Solomon, and it appears that he probably included Baruch as well. The first time all of the books Protestants have in their Bibles were actually included in the Bible, was at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., presided over by the Pope. And this council’s list was identical to the Catholic Bible of today. In the West, that list remained virtually unchanged until the Protestant Reformation. Thus, since Christians in the West universally used the contemporary Catholic Bible, from 382 until the Reformation—-and since, prior to that there were no Bibles identical to any Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Bible of today—-a more historical question would be, “why did Protestants remove books from the Bible?”

For Further Reading:

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1988. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Scripture-F-Bruce/dp/083081258X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298079076&sr=1-1.

McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Canon-Origin-Transmission-Authority/dp/1565639251/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298078831&sr=1-1. This is a revision of McDonald, Lee Martin. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Christian-Biblical-Canon/dp/1565630521/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298078831&sr=1-4.

McDonald, Lee M. and James A. Sanders, ed. The Canon Debate. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298078781&sr=1-1.

Metzger, Bruce M. An Introduction to the Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Apocrypha-Bruce-M-Metzger/dp/0195023404/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298078811&sr=1-1.

Morrow, Jeffrey L. “In the Crosshairs of the Canon.” This Rock 11, no. 11 (November 2000), available online at: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011fea4.asp. N.B. This article, which I wrote as an undergraduate student, contains a serious typo with the date of Trent. Also, although it is composed as a fictional dialogue at a Bible study, all of the conversations were real conversations I had with real people prior to writing this article.

56 thoughts on “Why Did the Catholic Church Add Books to the Bible?”

  1. One thing that is often not mentioned is the agreement on the OT canon that was reached b/t Catholics and Orthodox that was reached a few centuries earlier at the Council of Florence…and then later repudiated by the Orthodox. This canon at Florence was the same as was affirmed at Trent and so confirms a constant Tradition in the West. Some have argued that only at Trent was the OT canon settled, but I think Florence actually settled what Trent simply affirmed.

  2. Having read the article I submit that based on all of those facts the question shouldn’t in-fact be, “Who correctly established the Biblical canon?” The real question is, if the Bible is supposed to be a handbook and letter from God to man then why wouldn’t the same holy spirit which could communicate his thoughts to men and inspire them to write also see to it that translational and canonical integrity were maintained? It would seem akin to a company CEO allowing multiple versions of a company handbook to circulate and letting several trainers with different interpretations it train employees while expecting each employee to understand and follow company policy.

    1. Reggie,

      I think it has to do with free will. God allows us our own thoughts and beliefs. We must submit ourselves to the God to be moved by the Holy Spirit. God does not impose himself on us. God does not overpower us and tell us we must believe this or that. God gives us free will. The writers of the Bible have submitted themselves to God and been guided by the Holy Spirit. have a great day. God bless.

      1. Thanks, Jeananne, but that doesn’t quite answer the question I posed. Everyone has the freedom to choose what they believe in, and the truth of the matter is if you’re religious you do think that God wants you to believe “this or that.” The fact that he can’t make you isn’t really consequential. I know from first hand experience that two people can wholeheartedly believe that they have submitted themselves to the holy spirit and are guided by it while they argue tooth and nail with each other about the meaning of one verse or if a book belongs in the bible or not. If these two people with differing beliefs sincerely do have the goal of pleasing God to the best of their ability and having accurate knowledge then it would seem that the holy spirit would guide them to an identical understanding, the correct one.

      2. Jeananne, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree with your statements. The question remains, how are different Christians to know which canon to use. Should they follow the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians who include 1 Enoch and Jubilees? Or the Georgian Orthodox who include 4 Maccabees? Etc.

  3. Welcome back. So, it’s crystal clear the Jews did not accept the apocrypha as part of the OT canon. (Huge red-flag!) Why? For starters they’re utterly compromised by many conceptual, theological and historical issues. (e.g. Judith starts stating Nebuchadnezzar was King of Assyria ruling in Nineveh and that Arphaxad was ruler of the Medes. Good luck with that .) Even the writers indicate the non-inspired nature of their work. (e.g. Author of Maccabees notes that in his day prophecy had ended and asks mistakes in his account be pardoned him.)

    Consider, many heavyweights rejected these works. Melito of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome of Vulgate fame and many others. Even Pope Gregory the Great tells us Maccabees is not canonical. (Surely, speaking as a private theologian.) And books approved by other Popes reject the canonical status of these works. Notably, the stance of Trent contradicted the views of even the best Catholic scholars of its day.

    Get this: The earlier canon of Carthage / Hippo (listed in many papal decrees) includes material rejected by Trent. This means if I had heeded the Bishops of Rome I would have used non-inspired works for more than 1,000 years. Interesting, no?

    Honestly, don’t you find it a bit troubling that the body claiming to be the canon’s infallible interpreter didn’t even tell us what it was until 1546? (Better get Newman in here quick, as Apostolic Tradition doesn’t wear well at this point.) So for all that time you could trust neither scripture (the extent of which was unclear) nor the Papacy (that per Trent botched things earlier). So you’re in freefall for a millenium and a half. Nice.

    This is a complex subject, but you need to reevaluate your fundamental assumptions. I know many become RC’s because they get tripped up and look for an easy answer in RC solutions. Yet when examined, these prove to be very deeply flawed and no solutions at all. A fair read of history puts this beyond question.

  4. Missed you guys. Some facts: It’s crystal clear the Jews did not accept the apocrypha as part of the OT canon. (Huge red-flag!) Why? For starters they’re utterly compromised by many conceptual and historical issues. (e.g. Judith starts stating Nebuchadnezzar was King of Assyria ruling in Nineveh and that Arphaxad was ruler of the Medes. Good luck explaining that .) Event the writers indicate the non-inspired nature of their work. (e.g. The writer of Maccabees notes that in his day prophecy had ended. He also asks mistakes in his account be pardoned him.)

    Many heavyweights rejected these works. Melito of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, and notably Jerome of Vulgate fame. Even Pope Gregory the Great tells us Maccabees is not canonical. (Surely, speaking as a private theologian.) And books approved by other Popes reject the canonical status of these works. Notably, the stance of Trent contradicted the views of even the best Catholic scholars of its day.

    Get this: The earlier canon of Carthage (listed in many papal decrees) includes material rejected by Trent. This means if I had heeded the Popes I would have used non-inspired works for more than 1,000 years. Interesting, no?

    Don’t you find it troubling that the body claiming to be the infallible interpreter of the canon didn’t even tell us what it was until 1546? (Better get Newman in here quick, as Apostolic Tradition doesn’t wear well at this point.) So for all that time you could trust neither scripture (the extent of which was unclear) nor the Papacy (that per Trent botched things earlier). So you’re in freefall for a Millenium and a half.

    This is a complex subject, but you need to reevaluate your fundamental assumptions. I know many become RC’s because they get tripped up and look for an easy answer in RC solutions. Yet when fairly examined, these prove to be deeply flawed and no solution at all. A fair read of history puts this beyond doubt.

    1. Josh, great to hear from you! Thanks for your comments here. There’s a lot to be said, but we’ll be devoting posts (hopefully) to most of these issues. I’ll just make few comments in reference to a few of the points you bring up: (1) Some Jews did and still do include the deuterocanon in their Scripture (see the next few posts I’m making). But even if none of them did, it does not necessarily follow that they were divinely guided to exclude them. (2) It’s difficult to imagine anyone ever assuming Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians, and so when Judith does this, it would be understood by all to be of symbolic emphasis, like, “the worst leader of the worst enemy”—-like parables, not necessary to be historically accurate in the same way as other narratives. (3) Neither 1 Maccabees 9:27 nor 1 Maccabees 14:41 pertain to biblical inspiration, but rather (from a Christian perspective) are preparing readers for the advent of John the Baptist. Moreover, the comments in 2 Maccabees are an act of humility, not a denial of divine inspiration. (4) Your comments about “many heavyweights” rejecting these works needs a bit more scrutiny: Melito of Sardis’s OT canon reflected that of the Jewish community at Sardis. And you’re not quite right that he rejects the deuterocanon, because he did accept Wisdom of Solomon. And, although he included most of the OT books you and I would agree with, he excluded both Esther and Nehemiah. Nor did he have a 27 book NT. Origen’s OT canon is less clear, since Eusebius’ discussion refers to Origen’s comments regarding the Jews he knows. It’s possible he excluded them, but the evidence is a bit more complicated. Origen did use deuterocanonical texts and cited the use of them in the NT as justification. This doesn’t mean he accepted them as Scripture, but it might. Origen also thought that Jesus accepted at least Wisdom of Solomon’s status as Scripture, and was apparently convinced Jesus alluded to them. Athanasius did include Wisdom of Solomon (and possibly Baruch) but he excluded Esther. Jerome certainly had some difficulties with the deuterocanon, again, because the Jews he worked with excluded them, but notice that he included them in the Vulgate. And, when he doubted their status he also doubted the status of Esther. Jerome was eventually reconciled with the universal practice of the Church at that point on the matter of their inclusion. (5) Neither Carthage I nor Carthage III were ecumenical councils. Neither of their decisions were infallible—-we’d have to wait until Florence and Trent for an infallible canon. I’m not sure about a council of Carthage prior to 397 including discussion of a Bible canon. That’s new to me. I agree with you that this is a complex subject. And you bring up many more points that I need to address, and I hope to, if not here, then in a later post. Hopefully my discussion above at least clarifies that the so-called rejection of the deuterocanon is less clear than might at first appear from your comment. By the way, do you know where Pope St. Gregory the Great “tells us Maccabees is not canonical”? The historical context highlights why your “Surely, speaking as a private theologian” (which appears to be sarcastic), is not such a leap after all.

      1. Jeff, the citation I have for Pope Gregory is: Morals on the Book of Job, Vol. 11, parts 3 and 4, book XIX.34.
        The source I am looking at says that the New Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that he rejected the canonical status of Maccabees.

        1. That’s right—–although Gregory never says in the Moralia, “I reject 1 Maccabees” or anything like that. He does appear to consider it’s status as much like Martin Luther considered Judith—non-canonical, but very beneficial to read. And he uses it to make arguments. The exact wording is technically ambiguous…because he actually never names the text. He mentions the benefit of using certain beneficial texts, although they are not canonical, and then, apparently as an example, he cites an incident which occurs in 1 Maccabees, but which also occurs in Josephus. Now, for many reasons he is most likely referring to 1 Maccabees. However, the historical context I alluded to is that he began this work over 10 years before he became Pope. This would be like claiming something in Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth was infallible even though it was begun before he was pope. JPII’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope, written completely while he was pope, has absolutely no papal authority either, and is completely a matter of private theological opinion. I think all of these texts are great, but they are not infallible. Notice that once Pope, Gregory did not remove 1 Maccabees from the Vulgate, and indeed, every Old Testament from his time and later that included Esther and Nehemiah and Genesis and Isaiah, also included 1 Maccabees. Even the Gutenberg Bible (before Trent) included the deuterocanon.

          1. Yes, but inclusion in a collection does not mean these books were regarded as inspired. To my eyes the most significant theologians of the middle ages and up through the reformation made a distinction, citing Jerome and the Hebrew canon.
            The following from Card. Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther seems representative:

            Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be you disturbed, like a raw scholar, if you should find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.

          2. As for issues of infallible proclamations and the like, this would take us into the even more fundamental issue of final authority etc. Even though I think that a really solid argument for the exclusion of the apocrypha can be made (historically, theologically and by examining the documents themselves) none of that matters if you can claim an infallible source of information that transcends those considerations. If you want to know what I think about that I would encourage you to pick up where you left off in the Papacy series when you have a chance. Authority is the linchpin. That is where the real issue lies. If you are right about that then everything else follows necessarily. But if you are wrong about that, as a huge array of things compels me to believe you are, then you are building your entire edifice – however elegant and nuanced – on quicksand. But that’s just me.
            Wouldn’t if be really terrific if for a moment I could see Roman Catholicism through your eyes, with all that you know and you could see it from my perspective? I for the life of me don’t see how you can know so much about it and really think it is viable and not riddled with absurdities and worse, but you probably think the same thing about my perspective. Ah, well. This is what keeps life interesting, I suppose.

  5. One last thing. What do you make of the fact that Jesus, the apostles and the New Testament as a whole, while making many hundreds of citations and allusions to OT canon endorsed by all believers makes no mention of the books you advance as belonging to that list?
    Do you think that Christ and the apostles considered Tobit and Judith etc. authoritative scripture?

    1. Josh, actually the NT certainly alludes to deuterocanonical books. We’ll be doing a post enumerating some of these in detail, but since you seem to think them completely absent, I’ll just give one brief example: Hebrews 11:35’s allusions to 2 Maccabees 7. Yes, I do think Jesus considered the deuterocanonical inspired. And of course, there are books you (I think) and I both would consider to belong in the OT, but are not cited nor alluded to in the NT: I am unaware of any citations or allusions to Esther, Nehemiah, Song of Songs. I might be mistaken here. But just because they are not cited or alluded to does not mean they are not inspired. But, we should also be clear that just because a book is cited or alluded to in the New Testament, does not make it Scripture either. Jude cites both 1 Enoch and either the Assumption of Moses or else the Testament of Moses, which neither you (I think) nor I consider Scriptural. More on this in a future post. Of course, in none of these responses have you shown where there’s a Bible identical to a Protestant Bible of today prior to the Reformation.

      1. Josh: Regarding your comments: “Wouldn’t if be really terrific if for a moment I could see Roman Catholicism through your eyes, with all that you know and you could see it from my perspective? I for the life of me don’t see how you can know so much about it and really think it is viable and not riddled with absurdities and worse, but you probably think the same thing about my perspective. Ah, well. This is what keeps life interesting, I suppose.” I don’t think the same thing about your perspective at all, in that I do understand how “you can know so much” and disagree with me. I agree with your earlier comment that this is very complicated stuff. I think highly of your intellect, and of your faith in the Lord. It does keep things interesting. Nothing but love here for you brother.

    2. Regarding your comments on Cajetan, I concede he took issue with the canonicity (at least the canonicity in the sense you and I mean) of the deuterocanon, following St. Jerome’s early view. I don’t think this represents the view of most of the “best” minds prior to the Reformation, but we could debate that matter. Also, it is interesting to note that he assumes the early presence of these books in the early councils and early biblical canons.

      1. Oh, and I do hope to get back to the papacy series, but I need some time to put it together, unlike these quicker posts I’ve been doing more recently…but the time has not come yet.

  6. The word “canon” is a word that simply means “measure.” It comes from a Greek term that had
    to do with a measuring rod. In other words, the canon means the books that measured up. That’s kind of thesense of the word. That’s the meaning. The Roman Catholic Church had the council of
    Trent in the sixteenth century, following the Protestant Reformation. The Protestants said the
    Bible is supreme. This was their claim. That is not the way it actually worked out in practice,
    but their claim was that the Bible is supreme. The Catholic Church said, ‘You don’t even know
    what the Bible is and the church is supreme. The church is superior to the Bible because the
    church determines what the Bible is. And to prove that, we will add some books! We will
    declare, as a part of the canon, books that have been kind of on the borderline. We will declare
    those as a part of the Bible. We will fix the canon and we will determine—we will decide—
    what is in the Bible, and what is not. We are the ones that decided it and established the Bible to
    begin with.’ This was their claim. Is this true? The Catholic Church claims to be the one who
    provided the Bible. Is that really an accurate statement? What about the Old Testament? What
    about the New Testament? When was it written? Who wrote it? How do you know which books
    are a part of the Bible?
    Jesus Christ said that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out
    of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). If we are going to live by every word that proceeds out of
    the mouth of the Father, how do you know that this Book, the Bible, consist of every word of
    God? How do you know we have the whole thing? Maybe we just have part of it. Can we be
    sure?
    From time to time, we read of certain obscure books. Various books, sometimes, would turn up—the Apocrypha, books that are normally used as a part of the Catholic canon—and there are other books floating around from ancient times that even the Catholic Church does not consider a part of the canon. What about these books? Are they supposed to be a part of the Bible? Can you know if we have the whole Bible? Who decided that it was the Bible and how was it preserved?
    There are several things that we might look at. Romans 3:1 is one good place to start. Paul
    asked, “What advantage then has the Jew, or what profit is there of circumcision?”
    In v. 2, he answers it, “Much in every way! [Here is the chief advantage the Jews had.]
    Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.” “Oracles” means “the Word of
    God.” So the chief advantage that the Jews had is that, ‘to them were given the Word of God.’
    Verse 3, “For what if some did not believe it? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God
    without effect?” The advantage that the Jews had was that to them were given the Word of God!
    What if they didn’t believe it? What if some of them did not practice it? Many of them today do
    not practice it. Does their unbelief make the faithfulness of God of none effect?
    If God was going to give His Word to someone, does it make sense that God would then break
    His Word? If God is going to inspire something as His Word, then there needs to be some means of preserving it and of guaranteeing that what we have—what God’s people have had
    through the centuries—is what God wanted them to have. Now, if you are going to do that, then there has to be someone to preserve it. That was the job the Jews had. Their chief advantage is that they had committed to them the keeping of God’sWord. If they didn’t believe it, that didn’t affect it. They still had to keep God’s Word. God was going to be faithful. It was God’s responsibility to preserve it. He used them as human instruments.
    There is an interesting statement that Jesus made in the book of Matthew in what is called the
    Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:17-18, ‘“Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill [to fill to the full]. For truly
    I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle shall in any wise pass from
    the law till all be fulfilled.” Now what does that mean “not one jot or one tittle”? The term “jot” refers to the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, pronounced in Hebrew as “yad.” It looks like a little apostrophe, and it is the Hebrew letter that is the equivalent of our “y” or “i” sound. It is the smallest, least significant lookingletter. It looks like a little apostrophe. The “tittle” referred to kind of a decoration that was put on certain letters of the alphabet, particularly the ending letters of a word. What Christ is saying in effect is, ‘not the dotting of one “i”, not the crossing of one “t” is going to disappear.’ Everything is going to be preserved to the letter. That’s a pretty strong statement. He said it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the dotting of an “i” or the crossing of a “t” to pass away from the Old Testament! Ok, I will continue the study on this on a later post, I know this is a little extensive, may God bless you all!

  7. I was pretty pleased to uncover this page. I want to to thank you for ones time for this fantastic read!!
    I definitely loved every little bit of it and i also have you
    saved as a favorite to look at new information on your
    site.

  8. Heya i’m for the primary time here. I came across this board and I in finding It
    really useful & it helped me out much. I’m hoping
    to offer something again and help others like you helped me.

  9. Good day! Do you know if they make any plugins to protect against hackers?
    I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard on. Any recommendations?

  10. Great blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from
    somewhere? A design like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make
    my blog stand out. Please let me know where you got your theme.
    Kudos

  11. wi [2] Amazingly, he brand-new nothing of cheat 8 basketball
    pool until he seemed to be well into his thirties.
    If obvious coaching is given, a foul will be called and the shot will be turned
    over with a free spot behind the break line. Outside the
    mansion are large private gardens, a tennis court, a swimming pool and many hot
    tubs as well as caves, waterfalls and expansive areas of
    lawn and trees.

  12. This is also possible if they offer SEO as part of their service.
    One should keep in mind that communication lines
    for live support are kept open for paid accounts, who are given top priority.
    What search results will offered up with unless you possess a website or perhaps a
    blog to market your business.

  13. ブランドコピー時計大人気を海外激安通販専門店ロレックス、ブルガリ、フランク ミュラー、シャネル、カルティエ、オメガ、IWC、ルイヴィトン、オーデマ ピゲ、ブライトリング、グッチ、エルメス、パネライ、パテックフィリップ偽物(コピー商品)のブランドの腕時計の販売、通販。
    スーパーコピーブランド格安販売店はこちらへ!品々の激安価格に持ったスーパーコピーブランド 代引きの新作はお客様に提供されます。安心、迅速、確実、お客様の手元にお届け致します。★弊社は9年の豊富な経験と実績を持っております。★一流の素材を選択し、精巧な作り方でまるで本物のようなな製品を造ります。★品質を重視、納期も厳守、お客様第一主義を貫きは当社の方針です。★驚きの低価格で商品をお客様に提供致します!★早速に購入へようこそ! http://www.msnbrand.com/brand-copy-IP-24.html

  14. 春夏シーズンでも好評だった、
    BVLGARI(バッグ?財布?小物)CHLOE(バッグ?財布、小物)偽物ブランド,激安,コピー?ルイヴィトンバッグ,偽物?ルイヴィトン財布,コピーバッグ,ブランドバッグ,偽物バッグ,偽物シャネルバッグ,偽物エルメスバッグ,偽物グッチバッグ,偽物財布,コピー財布,時計の專門店 http://www.okakaku.com/brand-22-copy-0.html

  15. Great post. I used to be checking constantly this weblog and I am
    inspired! Extremely useful info specially the remaining part 🙂 I maintain such
    info much. I was seeking this particular information for a very lengthy time.

    Thank you and good luck.

  16. Se você está interessado em adquirir resultado em BCN
    Pharma TurboSlim Cronoative Pharma, ou descobrir os preços, marcas, e também peculiaridades, pode fazê-lo através do
    nosso sítio da Internet Nós enviamos para quaquer uma parte do Brasil (
    Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro Salvador, Recife, Curitiba) e Portugal, ​​
    México, Argentina, Paraguai, Alemanha, Itália etc.

  17. She claimed the reasons men offered for not discussing the problem
    reinforced the norms of just what society believes it is to ‘be a man’ – not to talk
    about their sensations or make those around them stress”.

  18. Lights and colors have different frequencies which typically make it much more difficult to
    slow down the brain. How do you know instinctively when to wake up in the morning.
    Is that the breakthrough hit, or the follow-up song that gets
    airplay because it was by that artist.

  19. Police stated Alfred withdrew an object from his pocket and took aim at them in a capturing
    stance.” Nonetheless, it was later found that Olango was reaching for his silver vape smoking system Brief video footage
    of the encounter was later launched.

  20. I am really loving the theme/design off your weblog.
    Do yoou ever run into any web browser compatibility problems?
    A number of my blog visitors have complained abouut my website not operating
    correctly in Explorer but looks great inn Safari. Do yoou have any
    suggestions too help fix thiis issue?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe without commenting