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

[Yarddog]

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.

Unprovided evidence is always unconsidered evidence. Show something from the Catholic Church where it changed OT canon.

 

[redleghunter]

However, they are not part of the Jewish scriptures.

You are correct. Never were prior to Christ's First Advent nor after.

 

[redleghunter]

They're in the Catholic Bible.

Not until Trent.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

An assertion devoid of the details of history:

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

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

 

[redleghunter]

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!

Not true and historically inaccurate.

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

 

[redleghunter]

The council of Carthage finished it

"The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage (397) pending ratification by the "Church across the sea", that is, the See of Rome."

Was that council ecumenical?

 

[BobRyan]

OP: Q: "Why aren't the Deuterocanonical books or the Apocrypha in the (NASB and other "Protestant") Bibles?

A: Because in the process of "canonization" , spirit-led Men guided by God the Holy Spirit, limited the final "Bible" to ~66 books ~ 44 "authors".

The RCC removed them, then added them back in, to support some of their dogma.

ONLY The "66 book Bible" is spirit inspired and superintended!!!

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Peter 1:21
...men moved by (God) the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

The content of the first 39 (the OT) having already been canonized by the Jews for over 400 years according to their own historian - Josephus. Placed in the temple and essentially locked down with nothing at all added for 400 years.

The remaining 27 -- that we call the New Testament - are under no dispute at all.

Thus the 66.

 

[BobRyan]

For the Old Testament, it really is that simple. The LXX/Septuagint was (is) the Scriptures of Christ and the Apostles. There was no need to change it.

Christ did not write any scriptures and was not speaking/teaching Greek to the Jews in Jerusalem. Neither did Jews living in Palestine need a greek text -- the Helenistic Jews did but not those in Israel and Christ pretty much stayed in Palestine. No visits to Greece or Asia or Italy by Christ.

So then not using the Septuagint.

"while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact."

"The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God). Most reformed teachers will point out that the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apocrypha was never considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture. "

Actually that statement is false. Luther included the books in his translation of the OT and thought they would be profitable to read but not as teaching doctrine. Both the Lutheran and Anglican lectionaries still include readings from these disputed books. These books were disputed almost right from the beginning of the church. Some believed them to be inspired such as Augustine, others did not such as Jerome, Athanasius etc. The dispute goes all the way to sixteenth century when Cardinal Cajetan who first interviewed Luther also denied they were inspired.
.

Sounds about right.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

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

The christian canon was defined around 399 ad at a council.

Luther put those books in an appendix to the OT because they teach some things that were not in line with his theology.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

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

2 Maccabees 12
Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.g43He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;44for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.45But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.46Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.

 

[FenderTL5]

"..when the Apostles quote the Jewish Scripture in their own writings, the overwhelmingly dominant source for their wording comes directly from the Septuagint (LXX). Given that the spread of the Gospel was most successful among the Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews, it made sense that the LXX would be the Bible for the early Church. Following in the footsteps of those first generations of Christians, the Orthodox Church continues to regard the LXX as its only canonical text of the Old Testament." (source Orthodox wiki)
I see no reason to change. ymmv

 

[Albion]

The christian canon was defined around 399 ad at a council.

Luther put those books in an appendix to the OT because they teach some things that were not in line with his theology.

That's the obvious answer for anyone who has a grudge against Luther, but if that had really been the case , there would have been other books that were potentially much more at odds "with his theology." Yet the books of the Apocrypha contain no information that DOES in fact, conflict with his theology.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that these books had always been questionable, due to their nature which is quite unlike the 66 books of the Bible that just about every church and denomination considers to be the inspired word of God and usable for establishing doctrine.

 

[Athanasius377]

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

Different spelling conventions but same person.

 

[Antig]

Not true and historically inaccurate.

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

True to me!

 

[Yarddog]

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

No, she is not historically incorrect. That some of the early Church Fathers disagreed with which OT books should be Canon has no bearing on what the Church accepted as OT Canon. It is simply their opinions.

The NT writers used the Septuagint, which contained the books that some termed as apocrypha. That meant more to Bishops than what a minority of others thought.

The Councils of Rome(Decree of Pope Damasus ), Hippo, and Carthage all declared the books in question as OT canon. While none declared them apocryphal.

Beyond any doubt, there were those individuals in the Church that continued to doubt and that gave rise to many problems which help lead to the Protestant reformers. It is impossible to know, now, but one can only imagine what the Church would look like if the Ecumenical Council of Trent would have convened a few hundred years earlier.

 

[Deadworm]

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

What is hilarious about this thread is that most posters have no clue what is meant by the apocryphal and deuterocanonical books.

Do you have the apocrypha in the Catholic OT in mind? If so, I must assume that you've never read them through/ Otherwise, how can you justify the inclusion of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus) when the incredibly misogynist 42:14 declares:

"Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is woman who brings shame and disgrace."

Or do you include in your apocrypha the countless intertestamental Jewish books and/ or the many apocrypha Christian Gospels? If so, I challenge you to identify just one apocryphal Gospel that stems from the apostolic era. And I challenge you to identify one spiritual insight or historical fact in these Gospels that is absent from our NT Gospels. Or can it be that you champion Gospels you have never read or studied?

 

[redleghunter]

True to me!

I laid out Roman Catholic Trent scholarship in the link provided in my response to you.

 

[redleghunter]

The NT writers used the Septuagint, which contained the books that some termed as apocrypha. That meant more to Bishops than what a minority of others thought

Yet none of the deutero canon books were quoted or alluded to in the NT writings. Maybe 1 Enoch but that is not in your canon although the Ethiopian Orthodox do have it.

The Councils of Rome(Decree of Pope Damasus ), Hippo, and Carthage all declared the books in question as OT canon. While none declared them apocryphal.

Which none of those councils were ecumenical. Ask the EOs if they were. If they were ecumenical then someone added to and or subtracted from those councils. The EOs have a larger canon than Rome and the Ethiopian Orthodox have an even larger canon. Seems the Eastern churches did not get the memo.

Beyond any doubt, there were those individuals in the Church that continued to doubt and that gave rise to many problems which help lead to the Protestant reformers. It is impossible to know, now, but one can only imagine what the Church would look like if the Ecumenical Council of Trent would have convened a few hundred years earlier.

The two scholars quoted by Jedin were the top two theologians going into Trent. One actually debated Luther. These men were not radicals or reformers. They just held to an equally traditional and historic canon position as I outlined here:

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

 

[redleghunter]

What is hilarious about this thread is that most posters have no clue what is meant by the apocryphal and deuterocanonical books.

Do you have the apocrypha in the Catholic OT in mind? If so, I must assume that you've never read them through/ Otherwise, how can you justify the inclusion of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus) when the incredibly misogynist 42:14 declares:

"Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is woman who brings shame and disgrace."

Or do you include in your apocrypha the countless intertestamental Jewish books and/ or the many apocrypha Christian Gospels? If so, I challenge you to identify just one apocryphal Gospel that stems from the apostolic era. And I challenge you to identify one spiritual insight or historical fact in these Gospels that is absent from our NT Gospels. Or can it be that you champion Gospels you have never read or studied?

Not to mention the historical errors of Judith, the angelic potions to ward off evil spirits with fish guts in Tobit.

And of course 2 Maccabees 12 where men who died in what RCs would deem mortal sin (idolatry), yet as used to prove purgatory to remove only venal sins.

 

[redleghunter]

The christian canon was defined around 399 ad at a council.

Luther put those books in an appendix to the OT because they teach some things that were not in line with his theology.

Erroneous history which seems to be believed on the internet:

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