Why aren't the Deuterocanonical books or the Apocrypha in the Bible?

[mathinspiration]

Some of these stories are about women of faith and some have a lot to do with Jewish history.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Early Church counsels of godly bishops and leaders waited on God and chose which books were part of the canon of Scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit within them. The other works may have been great literature and worth reading for inspiration and education, but the Holy Spirit did not confirm these works as have the status of Holy Scripture.

 

[Basil the Great]

Apparently it had to do with Judaism deciding two centuries or so after Jesus that said books were not part of their Bible, while supposedly there were originally or at least this is what I have read. However, the books are still part of Catholic Bibles and I would think Orthodox Bibles as well.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

"The bible," is an interesting phrase. My bible has them, the Ethiopian bible has even more books. So what is "the bible."

The question might better be phrased. Why aren't the deuterocanonical books or apocrypha in certain bibles.

 

[Daniel9v9]

They were included in the "Protestant Bible" originally, though they were considered of lesser authority than the Canon because of their uncertain origins. This is no novel idea, for even Jerome believed this.

The reason why we don't have the Apocrypha as part of our "Protestant Bible" today is part historical and part theological. Some - perhaps a bit extreme - reformers strongly objected to the books, whereas others gladly accept them. However, because it was cheaper and more efficient to print the Canon only, many started to drop the Apocrypha, and this has now become the standard model for large parts of the west.

I'm reading the Apocrypha with commentary at the moment and it's pretty cool; it gives you some insight into the Second Temple Period and it can help understand the New Testament from a historical point of view. It's important to understand that they should not put the Gospel into question, for the Gospel always remains the same! But they are useful and I think our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends do well for preserving them!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Some of these stories are about women of faith and some have a lot to do with Jewish history.

They're not in the modern bibles because in the late 1700's someone decided to claim apostolic authority and remove them from the canon ... no, no one did any such thing ... the books were just ripped out of the bible due to no hebrew manuscripts (which is kind of a strange reason considering the nature of the northern tribes after exile)

 

[Catherineanne]

Early Church counsels of godly bishops and leaders waited on God and chose which books were part of the canon of Scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit within them. The other works may have been great literature and worth reading for inspiration and education, but the Holy Spirit did not confirm these works as have the status of Holy Scripture.

Indeed so. And those early councils INCLUDED the deuterocanonical books and aprocrypha within Scripture.

Then someone else (Luther et al) came along and took them out, without any church council and without any authorisation whatever.

My personal view, fwiw, is that any Bible which does not include the story of a man being killed by an elephant is incomplete.

 

[Radagast]

Some of these stories are about women of faith and some have a lot to do with Jewish history.

However, they are not part of the Jewish scriptures.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Some of these stories are about women of faith and some have a lot to do with Jewish history.

They're in the Catholic Bible.

There's a fairly comprehensive link on the topic of the formation of the Scriptural Canon here - Canon of the Holy Scriptures | Catholic Answers

Your question would be more accurately phrased "Why did (some of) the Protestant reformers take some Old Testament books out of the Canon?" (and by what authority I might ask?).

Bear in mind the Old Testament was really the Jewish Scriptures, whereas the New Testament is the Christian Scriptures. So when Christians start fooling around and saying which OT books should or should not be in the Canon, they're fooling around with what you might call the Jewish experience.

Mind you, as a former Protestant, when I read the Deutero-Canonical books (Apocraphyl to use the Protestant term), I sort of get this sense they're not as "Spiritual" as the rest of the OT canon. But I can hardly claim to be an ultimate authority on Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Some of these stories are about women of faith and some have a lot to do with Jewish history.

That's just the point. They are not like the other books of the Bible, and no doctrine is based upon anything in any of these books.

They're morality tales, which doesn't mean that you shouldn't read them for instruction in Jewish life and thinking in the last years before the coming of Christ, but they are not divinely inspired.

 

[Mike Alexander]

The same Men that said yes to "The Gospel of Mark" and said no the "Ignatius to the Smyrmaeans" said yes to deuterocanocal books. I can't believe that these books were considered scripture for 1200 years and then all of a sudden it's called into question.

 

[Albion]

The same Men that said yes to "The Gospel of Mark" and said no the "Ignatius to the Smyrmaeans" said yes to deuterocanocal books. I can't believe that these books were considered scripture for 1200 years and then all of a sudden it's called into question.

I appreciate your thinking there, but actually they were NOT considered scripture for 1200 years and then all of a sudden they were called into question.

At the time of Christ and afterwards, the Jews who all agreed on the OT books were divided on these Apocryphal ones. Some accepted them and some did not. The Christian church included them when the Bible was codified, but the Roman Catholic Church carried them in the Bibles provisionally.

After Luther rejected them--but said that they should still be read, so long as they were not considered to be Scripture--the RCC removed some parts while approving of the remaining ones.

 

[Mike Alexander]

but actually they were NOT considered scripture for 1200 years and then all of a sudden they were called into question.

They WERE considered scripture.

At the time of Christ and afterwards, the Jews who all agreed on the OT books were divided on these Apocryphal ones.

You are free to follow the Jews if you would like to.

but the Roman Catholic Church carried them in the Bibles provisionally.

Do you have any backup for this statement?

After Luther rejected them--but said that they should still be read, so long as they were not considered to be Scripture--the RCC removed some parts while approving of the remaining ones.

I've heard this claim before. But I've never seen anyone who was able to back it up. Hopefully you can help me?

 

[Albion]

They WERE considered scripture.

As I said, they were carried in Bibles provisionally.

You are free to follow the Jews if you would like to.

Then that would be what you would be doing if you were to consider the Apocrypha to be divine revelation/Scripture...just that it would be one group of the Jews rather than the other group.

Do you have any backup for this statement?

I've heard this claim before. But I've never seen anyone who was able to back it up. Hopefully you can help me?

This is all available if you'll do a little research.

 

[Mike Alexander]

As I said, they were carried in Bibles provisionally

Yes, I know this is the second time you said this. If you say it again, does it make it true? I'm looking for substantiation.

Then that would be what you would be doing if you were to consider the Apocrypha to be divine revelation/Scripture...just that it would be one group of the Jews rather than the other

No I would not he doing that. If you do, then that is of course your choice.


Wow, being new hear I guess I was expecting a bit more information sharing between Christians.

 

[Antig]

The books were ripped out because Luther etc did not believe in them! They were fine for 1500 yrs before that though! Luther disagreed with them as did others.

Purgatory, is one that comes from the ripped out books.

It's a pity that people, several hundred years ago, decided they knew better than God!

 

[Mike Alexander]

The books were ripped out because Luther etc did not believe in them! They were fine for 1500 yrs before that though! Luther disagreed with them as did others.

Purgatory, is one that comes from the ripped out nooks.

It's a pity that people, several hundred years ago, decided they knew better than God!

I would still like to hear Albion's logic or sources for the 2 claims he/she made.

 

[Antig]

Anti-Catholic people will never give anything that backs up Catholicism. The Catholic church put the Canon together via the Holy Spirit. This is well known. A fact i have read before in many places. Without the church they would not have a Bible.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I know this is the second time you said this. If you say it again, does it make it true? I'm looking for substantiation.

By now, you could have found plenty of substantiation if you had cared to look.

 

[Mike Alexander]

By now, you could have found plenty
of substantiation if you had cared to look.

In other words, you've got nothing. I'll have to remember this if I run across you again. Hopefully this was a one time error on your part. Im giving you the benefit of the doubt. God Bless