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

[Vicomte13]

I understand you are serious, but there's no Protestant who worships the Bible.

Just as there is no Catholic who worships Mary.

 

[Balaam]

The Deuterocanonical books were first contained long wuth the books of the Old Testanent, However the name Deuterocanonical or secondary canon shows that even back then they were not considered to have the same authority as the primary canon. This was in the preface if the Latin Vulgate Bible, so taking these as secondary has a long history.

Later on (after the Council of Trent 1546) the Protestants divided this into the Old Testament, which was the same as the content of the 24 scrolls, and the Apocrypha, everything else, in a separate section, between the Old and New Testaments.

In Britain, during the English Civil War the Apocrypha was removed from English Protestant Bibles in 1647, only to be restored to Bible in 1660. It continued to be published as part of the Bible until 1826 when the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to include the Apocrypha.

The view of my denomination, Church of England, is that the Apocrypha is for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine, but pew Bibles in my local church do not include it. Also the Common Lectionary has readings from the Apocrypha, but also has an alternative reading for those who do not wish to use it.

In short, the Apocrypha was not removed until 1826.

 

[Albion]

Just as there is no Catholic who worships Mary.

Not necessarily so. It would depend on the regard that is accorded Mary.

Some people do indeed approach her in the way that they would approach a deity, even if they deny the fact, and they attribute to her powers that are essentially ones that only a god would have. That is not to say that the Catholic Church approves of such devotion, but it happens.

Meanwhile, I have to concur with what was said about the Bible; I have never met a person who could seriously be said to have worshipped the Bible. I would suggest that you might better have used as your retort, "just as there is no Catholic who worships the Pope."

 

[Vicomte13]

I have never met a person who could seriously be said to have worshipped the Bible.

I encounter them all the time on this site. They are blind to what they are doing because they believe themselves to be right in doing as they do.

It makes real communication impossible.

 

[Vicomte13]

I would suggest that you might better have used as your retort, "just as there is no Catholic who worships the Pope."

A better parallel would have been "just as there is no Catholic who worships the Church".

To the Catholic, the Church is the final authority, because God breathes there - the Church is inspired by God and speaks with the voice of God.

To the Protestant, that role is held by the Bible.

If I were charitable, I would say that the Protestant views that Bible as the Catholic views the Church, and that the Catholic views the Church as the Protestant views the Bible.

That would be true, and considerably less snarky than what I wrote.

So instead of starting the New Year with snark and accusations of bibliolatry, I'll let the better angels speak and say that what the Protestant thinks the Bible is, the Catholic thinks the Church is, and what the Catholic thinks the Church is, the Protestant thinks the Bible is.

 

[Albion]

I encounter them all the time on this site. They are blind to what they are doing because they believe themselves to be right in doing as they do.

I don't believe that's so. I have been here as long as you and read much the same material posted here as you have. I cannot remember anyone who advocated or reported worshipping the Bible. Yes, many have said that it's the word of God, that it's our ultimate source of guidance on doctrine, even that it is word-for-word infallible, but none of that amounts to "worshipping" the Bible.

 

[Albion]

A better parallel would have been "just as there is no Catholic who worships the Church".

If you wish. Any of these would be more correct than "just as there is no Catholic who worships Mary." I cannot remember anyone saying that Catholics worship the Church, however, whereas I have heard people say that Catholics worship the Pope.

To the Catholic, the Church is the final authority, because God breathes there - the Church is inspired by God and speaks with the voice of God.

To the Protestant, that role is held by the Bible.

That's not correct. To the Protestant, the inspired word of God, Holy Scripture is indeed the ultimate guide, but the Church itself is NOT the ultimate guide to Catholics. It is Scripture and Tradition (or, if you wish, Tradition including Scripture).

 

[Vicomte13]

That's not correct. To the Protestant, the inspired word of God, Holy Scripture is indeed the ultimate guide, but the Church itself is NOT the ultimate guide to Catholics. It is Scripture and Tradition (or, if you wish, Tradition including Scripture).

To the extent that semantics are important, you are also incorrect. So let me be much more explicit.

You wrote: "To the Protestant, the inspired word of God, Holy Scripture is indeed the ultimate guide". Holy Scripture is NOT the ultimate guide to Protestants. This is a more complete and correct statement:
"To the Protestant, the inspired word of God, Holy Scripture, as they each interpret and understand it, is the ultimate guide."

The parallel then would be: " To the Catholic, Tradition, including Scripture, as interpreted by the authority of the Church, is the ultimate guide."

 

[Albion]

To the extent that semantics are important, you are also incorrect. So let me be much more explicit.

You wrote: "To the Protestant, the inspired word of God, Holy Scripture is indeed the ultimate guide". Holy Scripture is NOT the ultimate guide to Protestants. This is a more complete and correct statement:
"To the Protestant, the inspired word of God, Holy Scripture, as they each interpret and understand it, is the ultimate guide."

Of course. And the same holds true of every doctrine, degree, magisterial POV, and custom, legend, and tradition that forms the basis of your belief system. Every guide in every church is accepted according to the person's understanding.

 

[Vicomte13]

Of course. And the same holds true of every doctrine, degree, magisterial POV, and custom, legend, and tradition that forms the basis of your belief system. Every guide in every church is accepted according to the person's understanding.

Who can doubt it? It's why I always say that the ULTIMATE judge of the universe is, of necessity and inescapably, the individual man himself - YOU - sitting on the throne of your own courtroom. A thing exists and is true, or does not and is false, only to the extent that you accept it. Sure, there are great forces out there that can destroy you in your court, but there is no power that can force you to believe anything. You can bend the knee and genuflect and curtsy to greater power, for reasons of self-preservation - that never made anybody really believe in the greater power or believe it was good. Nobody can make you believe anything. Only an outward acquiescence is achievable by force. Inner belief is the sovereign prerogative of each individual. God Himself can punish you for believing or not believing something, but unless he takes control by force and strips you of your free will, he cannot make you have faith in anything.

 

[Albion]

Who can doubt it? It's why I always say that the ULTIMATE judge of the universe is, of necessity and inescapably, the individual man himself - YOU - sitting on the throne of your own courtroom. A thing exists and is true, or does not and is false, only to the extent that you accept it. Sure, there are great forces out there that can destroy you in your court, but there is no power that can force you to believe anything.

Okay. And that analysis applies to every system of thought we can name.

 

[Yarddog]

All I can do as a friend is to recommend that you do the research and find out for yourself. You do not have to accept automatically what I and others have told you here about the matter, but do not dismiss it out of hand because you weren't aware of this history previously.

I have done the research. The books of the Septuagint have always been canon in the Catholic Church and confirmed by councils in the 4th century and at Trent.

 

[Albion]

Sounds like you've worded that in a way that sidesteps both of the issues under consideration--the provisional inclusion of these books in the canon in the 4th century and the fact that, during the Counter-Reformation, the church removed some of the Apocrypha. Not much of it but some (which ruins the argument that the Lutherans did something unthinkable by placing all of it in the 'not inspired' category).

I am sure you'd find it worthwhile to really investigate these matters, which is not to say that your faith or your allegiance to your church will be damaged if you do.

 

[Yarddog]

Sounds like you've worded that in a way that sidesteps both of the issues under consideration--the provisional inclusion of these books in the canon in the 4th century and the fact that, during the Counter-Reformation, the church removed some of the Apocrypha. Not much of it but some (which ruins the argument that the Lutherans did something unthinkable by placing all of it in the 'not inspired' category).

I am sure you'd find it worthwhile to really investigate these matters, which is not to say that your faith or your allegiance to your church will be damaged if you do.

There have been many unsubstantiated b claims by reformers that this occurred. But since no proof is provided it is best to dismiss the claims.

 

[Vicomte13]

Okay. And that analysis applies to every system of thought we can name.

Absolutely.

Which means, when we discuss things with people and argue with them, we have to consider carefully what our objective is.

If our goal is to feel good by bashing other people in the face for their stupidity, then we talk in one way, but if we want to actually PERSUADE another person of anything, we have to remember that they are the judge-king sitting high up on a bench, and we are weak and poor petitioners in their court, trying to gain their ear, trying to persuade them with our words that our cause is true.

I guarantee you that anybody who comes high and mighty into a courtroom before an American judge is courting a night in jail for contempt if he doesn't remember that the boss is king and the petitioner is inferior in power in that court.

I myself do always remember that. When I am trying to persuade somebody of something here and elsewhere, I try to be factual and sympathetic. When I have already judged that my interlocutor has a closed mind to me and that I will get nowhere, I then consider that person's demeanor. If that person has been respectful and reasonable with me, I will go in peace. When that person has been a "Jerk for Jesus", I hang around and torment him out of contempt.

We're all judges in our own courtrooms.

 

[Tutorman]

Jdt 1:1 In the twelfth year of the reign of Nabuchodonosor, who reigned in Nineve, the great city; in the days of Arphaxad, which reigned over the Medes in Ecbatane,(Brenton LXX)

Now I don't know about you but I would hope the God the Holy Spirit would know which empire to put Nebuchadnezzar in.

Actually so far in my research this is not false and the man is not Nebuchadnezzar that you spelled it but I could be wrong still researching

 

[redleghunter]

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

Tobit 6: New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

On the Way to Rages. 2 When the young man left home, accompanied by the angel, the dog followed Tobiah out and went along with them. Both journeyed along, and when the first night came, they camped beside the Tigris River. 3 When the young man went down to wash his feet in the Tigris River, a large fish leaped out of the water and tried to swallow his foot. He shouted in alarm. 4 But the angel said to the young man, “Grab the fish and hold on to it!” He seized the fish and hauled it up on dry land. 5 The angel then told him: “Slit the fish open and take out its gall, heart, and liver, and keep them with you; but throw away the other entrails. Its gall, heart, and liver are useful for medicine.” 6 After Tobiah had slit the fish open, he put aside the gall, heart, and liver. Then he roasted and ate part of the fish; the rest he salted and kept for the journey.

Raphael’s Instructions. Afterward the two of them traveled on together till they drew near to Media. 7 Then the young man asked the angel this question: “Brother Azariah, what medicine is in the fish’s heart, liver, and gall?” 8 He answered: “As for the fish’s heart and liver, if you burn them to make smoke in the presence of a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, any affliction will flee and never return. 9 As for the gall, if you apply it to the eyes of one who has white scales, blowing right into them, sight will be restored.”

 

[redleghunter]

"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.

We can "ask" St Athanasius:

But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.

But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 39 (Athanasius)

 

[Albion]

There have been many unsubstantiated b claims by reformers that this occurred. But since no proof is provided it is best to dismiss the claims.

It is always best to dismiss claims AFTER seeing the evidence.

BTW, this is why I decline to be "double dared" to submit a lot of evidence when the other party doesn't intend to consider it, no matter what is presented to him and what that evidence shows.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Historically inaccurate as several Roman Catholic theologians going into Trent and scholars did not deem the books as canon.


It should also be clear that Luther and the other reformers were not engaging in a new thought of chucking the deutercanons as the meme of many pitch.

The OT canon was open leading even into Trent. This is most notable in the opinions of two highly respected Catholic theologians. One of which debated Luther at Worms.

The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin, waded into the dispute leading up to and during Trent. He noted one respected theologian stanchly loyal to the Pope, Cardinal Seripando. Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin elaborates:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome,Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially thePsalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense ofthe word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted.St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree ofauthority when he gives ahigher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, thebooks of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruchare only “canonici etecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in hiscommentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B.Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

Jedin continues:

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278. (Papal Legate at the Council of Trent)

Catholic historian Hubert Jedin also adds later:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

The next Cardinal to raise opposition at Trent was Cardinal Cajetan:


In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the OldTestament. 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 thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest 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. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

Cajetan Responds