Why the Apocryphal Books Rejected as Scripture.

[Xeno.of.athens]

The authors of the Apocrypha acknowledge that they aren’t prophets and don’t speak with divine authority like the Old Testament authors. The author of 1 Maccabees writes:

So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when prophets ceased to appear among them (1 Macc. 9:27).

Prophets only existed in their ancient memories. This text, written around 100 BC, refers back to a time when the prophets were in their midst. The logical conclusion is that no prophet existed at this time who could speak from God. First Maccabees 14:41 also says as much:

The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever until a trustworthy prophet should arise.

Again, none of the Jews knew of a prophet who was speaking from God during the time of these events.

Additionally, these books contain theological and historical errors. For example, the Book of Wisdom indicates that God created the world out of preexisting matter (11:17) which contradicts the rest of Scripture’s teaching that God created the world out of nothing. Moreover, the book of Judith incorrectly states Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria, when in fact, he was the king of Babylon (1:5).

It’s hard to imagine how the Spirit could inspire documents containing both theological and historical error. When you couple the errors with the authors’ acknowledgment that no prophets existed during this time, we have good reasons to reject the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture.


The Jews don’t believe the Apocrypha belongs in their Bible, and they never have. Josephus, the greatest Jewish historian of the first century, explained:

It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers.

Josephus’ quote is especially helpful here. He indicates that ever since the reign of Artaxerxes (465-424 BC), the Jewish writings (the Apocrypha) have “not been esteemed of the like authority with the former (the Old Testament) by our forefathers.” In other words, the Jewish consensus was that while these writings might contain some helpful history and content, they don’t belong in the same category as the Old Testament texts.

Rabbinic literature during the first couple of centuries also affirms this distinction. The Babylonian Talmud reports:

After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.

Based on this text, the Jews recognized that the Spirit stopped speaking through the prophets after Malachi died. Thus, the Apocryphal documents, which were written after Malachi, are not Spirit-inspired Scripture.

In fact, no early or recent Jewish canon includes the Apocrypha. That the Jews reject these Jewish documents as Scripture is a strong indication that they don’t belong in our Bible.


When reading the New Testament, you will find hundreds of quotations from the Old Testament. According to one count, Jesus and his apostles quote various portions of the Old Testament as Scripture 295 times. Not once, however, do they quote a text from the Apocrypha.

The absence of references to the Apocrypha speaks volumes. After all, if these books were from God, why wouldn’t Jesus or his apostles quote from them? They don’t, because they believed the Old Testament canon was closed, and it didn’t include the Apocrypha.

We see a couple hints of this in the New Testament. Jesus indicates in Luke 24:44 that the Jewish Scripture include, “The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” In other words, Jesus breaks down the Jewish canon into three sections — the law, the prophets, and the writings (the Psalms represented the writings). Notice he doesn’t mention the Apocrypha.

Jesus gives another indication of a closed Jewish canon in Luke 11:51. When talking to the Jewish leaders, Jesus says the Jews will be held accountable for all the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah. At first glance, it might appear that Jesus is making an alphabetical list, but that’s not what he’s doing. Remember, his alphabet was different from ours. Instead, Jesus makes a chronological list. Abel was the first martyr in Genesis (the first book), and Zechariah was the last martyr in Chronicles (the last book in the Jewish Bible). Note, the Jewish Bible contains all the same books as our present Old Testament, but their ordering of the books is different.

Again, the New Testament provides strong evidence that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in our Bible.


The Roman Catholic Church officially declared that the Apocrypha was canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546. One must ask though if these books were authoritative, why wait over fifteen hundred years to declare their authority? It seems that Rome declared their canonical status as a direct response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers who rejected these books and their teachings.

Perhaps the biggest reason these books were even up for discussion is because St. Jerome hesitantly included them in the Latin Vulgate Bible in AD 404. Because this was the official Bible of the Western Church for over a thousand years, it’s not hard to imagine how Christians began to think the Apocrypha was also Scripture.

While Jerome included these books in his Vulgate, he specifically differentiated them from the rest of the Bible. He indicated that these books were “not for the establishing of the authority of the doctrines of the church.”4 That is to say, Jerome recognized that these books didn’t carry the same authority as Scripture. Only Scripture establishes Christian doctrine. The Apocrypha doesn’t have authority to do that.

Knowing the origins of their inclusion in the Latin Vulgate and the late declaration of their canonical status is yet another reason to reject these books as Scripture.

Your post reads too much into passages like 1Macc 9:27. It is not a claim that prophesying had ceased in the whole world.

1 Maccabees 9:27 DRB And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel.
The verse asserts a lack of prophets in [the land of] Israel, its context is the Greek persecution of the people who returned from exile. Are you claiming that the verse teaches that there was no prophet in any land where Israelites lived; none in Babylon, none in Egypt, none in Syria, and so forth?

Psalms 74:9 DRB Our signs we have not seen, there is now no prophet: and he will know us no more.
This is about the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians around 586 BC, yet Daniel and Ezekiel arose as prophets after the destruction, and Jeremiah continued as a Prophet of God in Egypt.

And Anna (aged 84) is a prophetess before Jesus was born. Luke 2:36 DRB And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser. She was far advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity.

 

[HTacianas]

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture
2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture
3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture
4. The Books Of The Apocrypha Were Written During The Silent Years
5. The Septuagint Translation Proves Nothing

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.​

6. There Is No Evidence The Apocrypha Was In Septuagint At The Time Of Christ
7. There Is No Evidence Of A Greater Alexandrian Canon
8. They Are Not On The Early Canonical Lists
9. They Were Rejected By Most Church Leaders
10. There Are Other Books Apart From The Apocrypha That Are Cited As Scripture By Some Church Fathers
11. The Early Greek Manuscripts Are Not Decisive

The Books Have A Different Order And Content​

In the three most important Greek manuscripts the order and the contents of the books are different.​

12. The Apocrypha Is Not A Well-Defined Unit
13. The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive

The fact that the councils of Hippo and Carthage accepted the canonical status of the Apocrypha is not decisive. First, they were not larger more representative councils. In addition, these councils had no qualified Hebrew scholar in attendance. Basically the Apocrypha was canonized at these councils because of the influence of one person - Saint Augustine.​

There was one great Hebrew scholar among the Christian Church living in the era of Saint Augustine - Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate. Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.

We can start there:

​

​

Well you've answered your own question. The Synods of Hippo and Carthage were convened under the authority of Jesus Christ. As he said to his Apostles:

Mat 18:19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.

Mat 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

Those Synods were effectively ratified by the entire Church. And it would take an Ecumenical Council to change that.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Your post reads too much into passages like 1Macc 9:27. It is not a claim that prophesying had ceased in the whole world.

1 Maccabees 9:27 DRB And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel.
The verse asserts a lack of prophets in [the land of] Israel, its context is the Greek persecution of the people who returned from exile. Are you claiming that the verse teaches that there was no prophet in any land where Israelites lived; none in Babylon, none in Egypt, none in Syria, and so forth?

Psalms 74:9 DRB Our signs we have not seen, there is now no prophet: and he will know us no more.
This is about the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians around 586 BC, yet Daniel and Ezekiel arose as prophets after the destruction, and Jeremiah continued as a Prophet of God in Egypt.

And Anna (aged 84) is a prophetess before Jesus was born. Luke 2:36 DRB And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser. She was far advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity.

I know of the post exile prophets. However, after Malachi, there was no prophetic word from God, up until John the Baptist.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I know of the post exile prophets. However, after Malachi, there was no prophetic word from God, up until John the Baptist.

But Anna the prophetess preceded John.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The canon of the Old Testament is a product of Catholic Church councils.

Negative.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

But Anna the prophetess preceded John.

You are right. Her and Zechariah proceed John.
There was no prophets until these two.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You are right. Her and Zechariah proceed John.
There was no prophets until these two.

What evidence do you have for that, there is the author of Wisdom, Sirach, first and second Maccabees, and without doubt many who left no written record.

 

[RandyPNW]

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture
2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture
3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture
4. The Books Of The Apocrypha Were Written During The Silent Years
5. The Septuagint Translation Proves Nothing

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.​

6. There Is No Evidence The Apocrypha Was In Septuagint At The Time Of Christ
7. There Is No Evidence Of A Greater Alexandrian Canon
8. They Are Not On The Early Canonical Lists
9. They Were Rejected By Most Church Leaders
10. There Are Other Books Apart From The Apocrypha That Are Cited As Scripture By Some Church Fathers
11. The Early Greek Manuscripts Are Not Decisive

The Books Have A Different Order And Content​

In the three most important Greek manuscripts the order and the contents of the books are different.​

12. The Apocrypha Is Not A Well-Defined Unit
13. The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive

The fact that the councils of Hippo and Carthage accepted the canonical status of the Apocrypha is not decisive. First, they were not larger more representative councils. In addition, these councils had no qualified Hebrew scholar in attendance. Basically the Apocrypha was canonized at these councils because of the influence of one person - Saint Augustine.​

There was one great Hebrew scholar among the Christian Church living in the era of Saint Augustine - Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate. Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.

We can start there:

​

​

It sounds like you have more experience studying this question than me. Quite frankly, I've never read the Apocrypha for the reasons you give, though I might question a few of your points.

The big thing, for me, is that Scripture normally presents the voice of God in matters of His covenants. It is not just strictly history, but more--covenant history. It is not just poetry--it leads one to God, the author if history. It has a prophetic quality to it that accords with all divine revelation, and is delivered by authoritative figures, renowned for their knowledge of God.

I'm not surprised that both Jews and Christians have retained some of this. Compiling literature, whether Scripture or not, can be useful simply for the purpose of supplying references to a particular period of time. I think Jude and Peter quoted Enoch, but that doesn't mean that were identifying it as Scripture. It had a useful purpose.

But I do think it's dangerous to try to give Scriptural authority to the Apocrypha. As you say, it isn't reliable in regard to establishing biblical doctrine.

 

[Always in His Presence]

But I do think it's dangerous to try to give Scriptural authority to the Apocrypha. As you say, it isn't reliable in regard to establishing biblical doctrine.

On this we agree - The Apocrypha are historical documents. But do not rise to the level of Divinely inspired. In several instances they contradict Scripture and make historical errors.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In several instances they contradict Scripture and make historical errors.

Like the four gospels? John tells of Jesus crucified on Passover and die at about 3 PM the hour where the Passover lamb is slaughtered. Matthew Mark and Luke say otherwise which some will say is a contradiction. Saint Luke starts by giving information about dates which disagree with Official Roman Imperial records.

 

[BobRyan]

And the Essenes had a larger canon than did the Pharisees; so, @BobRyan , is relying on what may have been the Pharisees' holy books

As Josephus pointed out in this first century statement - only ONE canon was being preserved in the temple for over 400 years by the time he wrote his first century statement on the Hebrew canon that had been confirmed and unchanged for that period of time.

Next we come to Josephus of Jerusalem (A.D. 37-95), whose numeration of the Old Testament (Tanakh) as consisting of twenty-two books has already been alluded to. JOSEPHUS -- Contra Apionem, “We have not tens of thousands of books, discordant and conflicting, but only twenty-two containing the record of all time, which have been justly believed to be divine.” After referring to the five books of Moses (Torah), thirteen books of the prophets, and the remaining books (which "embrace hymns to God and counsels for men for the conduct of life"), he makes this significant statement: "From Artaxerxes (the successor of Xerxes) until our time everything but has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is evident by our own conduct; for though so long a time has now passed, no one has dared to add anything to them, or to take anything from them, or to alter anything from them" (1.8). ================================================== Note important features of this statement: (1) Josephus includes the same three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures as does the MT (although restricting the third group to "hymns" and hokhmah), and he limits the number of canonical books in these three divisions to twenty-two.[1] (2) No more canonical writings have, been composed since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (.464-424.B.C.), that is, since the time of Malachi.

Gleason Archer, in his book, "A Survey of OT Introduction, quotes from Josephus. The quote is above. He states that there are only 22 books in the OT canon (Tanakh). Those 22 books correspond to the 39 books of our English Bible, because of their arrangement in combining certain books together. All 12 minor prophets for example were considered as one book. Josephus also states that no canonical book was written since the time of Malachi.

(Note the Talmud credits Ezra for compiling the Canon of the Hebrew Tanakh -- OT Bible). This is inline with Josephus' statement that there had been no changes since the end of the 5th Century B.C.

 

[Valletta]

On this we agree - The Apocrypha are historical documents. But do not rise to the level of Divinely inspired. In several instances they contradict Scripture and make historical errors.

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible all apocryphal texts were rejected. There is a passage in Hebrews that refers to those who were tortured for their belief in resurrection, and that story is only found in one place in the Bible--in Maccabees. As I've said, those books were in the Bible for roughly a thousand years before they were rejected by Protestants. To clarify, those books were rejected by Protestants as being God-breathed during the reformation, but not physically removed from the King James until the 1800s. The historical documentation of prayers for the dead is not a popular topic with many Protestants.

 

[BobRyan]

"We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men "(William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8).

"And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them" (Josephus, Ibid. p. 609).

 

[Valletta]

As Josephus pointed out in this first century statement - only ONE canon was being preserved in the temple for over 400 years by the time he wrote his first century statement on the Hebrew canon that had been confirmed and unchanged for that period of time.

We've cited two groups of Jews that used a different canon. Was it pressure from his group of Jews that caused him to ignore other canons in his writings? We can't say for certain, I will say it does appear that Josephus could slant or embellish a story. The Catholic Church took a prayerful approach in choosing the 73 books of the Bible, a process that spanned centuries and was very much attuned to the teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Apostles.

 

[Valletta]

The authors of the Apocrypha acknowledge that they aren’t prophets and don’t speak with divine authority like the Old Testament authors. The author of 1 Maccabees writes:

So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when prophets ceased to appear among them (1 Macc. 9:27).

Prophets only existed in their ancient memories. This text, written around 100 BC, refers back to a time when the prophets were in their midst. The logical conclusion is that no prophet existed at this time who could speak from God. First Maccabees 14:41 also says as much:

The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever until a trustworthy prophet should arise.

Again, none of the Jews knew of a prophet who was speaking from God during the time of these events.

Additionally, these books contain theological and historical errors. For example, the Book of Wisdom indicates that God created the world out of preexisting matter (11:17) which contradicts the rest of Scripture’s teaching that God created the world out of nothing. Moreover, the book of Judith incorrectly states Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria, when in fact, he was the king of Babylon (1:5).

It’s hard to imagine how the Spirit could inspire documents containing both theological and historical error. When you couple the errors with the authors’ acknowledgment that no prophets existed during this time, we have good reasons to reject the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture.


The Jews don’t believe the Apocrypha belongs in their Bible, and they never have. Josephus, the greatest Jewish historian of the first century, explained:

It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers.

Josephus’ quote is especially helpful here. He indicates that ever since the reign of Artaxerxes (465-424 BC), the Jewish writings (the Apocrypha) have “not been esteemed of the like authority with the former (the Old Testament) by our forefathers.” In other words, the Jewish consensus was that while these writings might contain some helpful history and content, they don’t belong in the same category as the Old Testament texts.

Rabbinic literature during the first couple of centuries also affirms this distinction. The Babylonian Talmud reports:

After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.

Based on this text, the Jews recognized that the Spirit stopped speaking through the prophets after Malachi died. Thus, the Apocryphal documents, which were written after Malachi, are not Spirit-inspired Scripture.

In fact, no early or recent Jewish canon includes the Apocrypha. That the Jews reject these Jewish documents as Scripture is a strong indication that they don’t belong in our Bible.


When reading the New Testament, you will find hundreds of quotations from the Old Testament. According to one count, Jesus and his apostles quote various portions of the Old Testament as Scripture 295 times. Not once, however, do they quote a text from the Apocrypha.

The absence of references to the Apocrypha speaks volumes. After all, if these books were from God, why wouldn’t Jesus or his apostles quote from them? They don’t, because they believed the Old Testament canon was closed, and it didn’t include the Apocrypha.

We see a couple hints of this in the New Testament. Jesus indicates in Luke 24:44 that the Jewish Scripture include, “The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” In other words, Jesus breaks down the Jewish canon into three sections — the law, the prophets, and the writings (the Psalms represented the writings). Notice he doesn’t mention the Apocrypha.

Jesus gives another indication of a closed Jewish canon in Luke 11:51. When talking to the Jewish leaders, Jesus says the Jews will be held accountable for all the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah. At first glance, it might appear that Jesus is making an alphabetical list, but that’s not what he’s doing. Remember, his alphabet was different from ours. Instead, Jesus makes a chronological list. Abel was the first martyr in Genesis (the first book), and Zechariah was the last martyr in Chronicles (the last book in the Jewish Bible). Note, the Jewish Bible contains all the same books as our present Old Testament, but their ordering of the books is different.

Again, the New Testament provides strong evidence that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in our Bible.


The Roman Catholic Church officially declared that the Apocrypha was canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546. One must ask though if these books were authoritative, why wait over fifteen hundred years to declare their authority? It seems that Rome declared their canonical status as a direct response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers who rejected these books and their teachings.

Perhaps the biggest reason these books were even up for discussion is because St. Jerome hesitantly included them in the Latin Vulgate Bible in AD 404. Because this was the official Bible of the Western Church for over a thousand years, it’s not hard to imagine how Christians began to think the Apocrypha was also Scripture.

While Jerome included these books in his Vulgate, he specifically differentiated them from the rest of the Bible. He indicated that these books were “not for the establishing of the authority of the doctrines of the church.”4 That is to say, Jerome recognized that these books didn’t carry the same authority as Scripture. Only Scripture establishes Christian doctrine. The Apocrypha doesn’t have authority to do that.

Knowing the origins of their inclusion in the Latin Vulgate and the late declaration of their canonical status is yet another reason to reject these books as Scripture.

Your post, word for word (except the four numbered titles have been removed) may be found at: Why The Apocrypha Isn’t In The Bible Please make sure to give credit to a source. In this case it is Ryan Leasure, the pastor of Grace Bible Church in Moore, South Carolina. I have already pointed out that Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, that his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. Don't let Mr. Leasure mislead you, the Catholic Church established the canon of the Bible more than a thousand years before Trent.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Please make sure to give credit to a source.

Thank you for correcting me.

Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, that his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. Don't let Mr. Leasure mislead you, the Catholic Church established the canon of the Bible more than a thousand years before Trent.

There was no prophet from Malachi until Anna and Zechariah.
Apocrypha books are not Holy Spirit inspired, as they have mistakes in them.

And who exactly gave the Catholic church the authority to establish the canon?

 

[BobRyan]

We've cited two groups of Jews that used a different canon.

And all of them would agree with Josephus' statement that in the actual Temple itself - only one canon was being preserved "in the Temple". Josephus freely agrees that a lot of other things were out there - but none had that official canonization process - kept in the temple , except the Hebrew Bible - which all Jews even today - know about as did Protestant Christians (and Jerome himself) for 2000 years.

Was it pressure from his group of Jews that caused him to ignore other canons in his writings?

Or was it the fact that he knew what all Jews today know about that one canon that was preserved in temple. Rather than dozens of different canons in the temple?

 

[Philip_B]

And all of them would agree with Josephus' statement that in the actual Temple itself - only one canon was being preserved "in the Temple". Josephus freely agrees that a lot of other things were out there - but none had that official canonization process - kept in the temple , except the Hebrew Bible - which all Jews even today - know about as did Protestant Christians (and Jerome himself) for 2000 years.

Or was it the fact that he knew what all Jews today know about that one canon that was preserved in temple. Rather than dozens of different canons in the temple?

Temple as against Synagogue. This is intelligible as the presumed language of the Temple was Hebrew, while the language of the Synagogue was far more likely Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew in some balance depending on the community.

Canonisation became important after the rise of the Christians as a matter of keeping the New Testament Writings out of the Canon. Except for those who dispute it on ideological grounds, scholars generally agree that the LXX (including the deutero-canonical texts) was the source document for OT references.

"know about as did Protestant Christians (and Jerome himself) for 2000 years."
I am not sure why you claim for Protestants for 2000 years. We have just celebrated 500 years for the nailing of the 95 theses to Wittenberg Cathedral.

 

[Athanasius377]

Nope. Those are post-facto justifications and nothing more. A good number of them are just inaccurate too.

Protestantism rejects seven canonical books {Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, first and second Maccabees, Baruch} and parts of Esther and parts of Daniel because <pause for effect> in the sixteenth century their leaders wanted to.

im guessing by the shortness of your post this isn’t the first discussion on the issue of Canon you have been part of. That said @hislegacy is far closer than you willing to give him credit. I would quibble with some of wording but he is essentially correct. Well, as correct without composing a multi volume tome on the matter. Luther gets the blame for removing the apocrypha from the canon yet he was merely affirming what others had written before. Including Jerome and Luther’s contemporary cardinal Carajtan amoung others. So in the end Luther kept the apocrypha in the bound copies of his translation as did the English reformers up to and including the KJV. In fact these books are still read liturgically by some Lutheran and Anglican churches to this very day but are not considered Holy Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

And all of them would agree with Josephus' statement that in the actual Temple itself - only one canon was being preserved "in the Temple". Josephus freely agrees that a lot of other things were out there - but none had that official canonization process - kept in the temple , except the Hebrew Bible - which all Jews even today - know about as did Protestant Christians (and Jerome himself) for 2000 years.

Or was it the fact that he knew what all Jews today know about that one canon that was preserved in temple. Rather than dozens of different canons in the temple?

Temple as against Synagogue.

True... there were many many synagogues in town after town - but only one Temple in Jerusalem.

So then Josephus' claim that they had not been changed for almost 500 years as of the date of his writing - around 90 A.D. tells us a lot about how firm that canonization of the Hebrew Bible - preserved without change in the Temple - actually was.