Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha

Hope I spelled those right.

Someone had asked on a thread why Protestants do not include the Apocryphal books in their Bibles.

I found this that helps clarify it:

carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible

If others have other reasons can we discuss them here? I’m interested as well as I’m not well-learned on these books.

God bless!

Rita

CARM is an anti-Catholic site, so I would consider anything there related to Catholicism a down right lie and at best false and total misrepresented. They may have some actual true points but nothing that will support the Catholic faith as being right on something.

I went to the site and did make it past #1. When I read it, it brought to mind the attached information.

Catholic replies: shamelesspopery.com/why-not-66-answering-brian-edwards-arguments-for-the-protestant-canon-pt-i/

shamelesspopery.com/defending-the-deuterocanon-book-by-book-part-i/

shamelesspopery.com/defending-the-deuterocanon-book-by-book-part-ii/

Luther’s main reason for leaving out these seven whole books, plus extensive parts of Esther and Daniel, was simple and straightforward: These books are not included in the Jewish scriptures, for the reason ― I believe ― that no Hebrew text has survived. In some cases, for instance 2 Maccabees, the books were originally written in Greek, but in other cases the original Hebrew manuscripts were simply lost.

The fact that they were lost would suggest, of course, that the Jewish religious authorities had already deemed them not worth preserving. In any case, I’m no specialist and this explanation may not be 100 percent watertight ― if anyone cares to improve upon it, I’ll be grateful to them.

I went to your Carm link and, like wmscott (#2 on this thread), I didn’t bother to read very far. It seems, quite frankly, to have been written by someone who knows even less about the subject than I do.

Catholic replies: shamelesspopery.com/why-not-66-answering-brian-edwards-arguments-for-the-protestant-canon-pt-i/

shamelesspopery.com/defending-the-deuterocanon-book-by-book-part-i/

shamelesspopery.com/defending-the-deuterocanon-book-by-book-part-ii/

Refuted here…

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

The reason why Catholics accept these books as canonical is because they were canonical or part of the scriptures at the time Jesus used them in the Septuagent. The Jewish leaders in 300AD who took them out, did so for arbitrary reasons (like it had to be written in Palestine and in Hebrew) and in a criterion that just defies logic, an inspired work could not have been written after the prophet Ezra even though the Pharisees taught that the prophecies had not yet been fulfilled.
Luther was actually looking to cut the Catholic letters, Hebrews and Revelations, but the protestants rejected that.

CARM is a well known anti Catholic site. No thanks.

Mary.

Hi, Rita.

As the others have said - CARM is a notoriously anti-Catholic website and organization.

If you wish to discuss this topic, I would suggest you lead-off with something OTHER than an embarassingly anti-Catholic website.

CARM clarifies nothing.

Have a good rest of your Saturday.

I have a translated copy of the Septuagint LXX and those book are in that Old Testament.

Which would be the Scriptures that Jesus would have used.

I do not know where the information on the li
:)nk came from.

Hi Rita. Admittedly I haven’t read that entire webpage…

But here what I find interesting:

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church

  1. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4
  1. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

So not only does the author describe himself as non-Catholic, but he actually admits that St. Jerome, Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Athanasius *were *Catholic.

Anyone see something wrong with this picture? :shrug: :wink:

:popcorn:

oops

:blush:

Guess I couldn’t decide if I wanted to say “here’s what I find interesting” or “hear what I find interesting”. :smiley:

And yet St. Jerome quotes from the Deuterocanonicals many times calling them inspired scripture, as shown by this link: matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St. Jerome, [347-419/420 A.D]

More from the pen of St. Jerome himself:

**In Saint Jerome’s prologue on the book of Judith, herecongizesthat the First Council ofNicea(AD 325 – the council defended the Trinity and deity of Christ againstArians) recognized the book of Judith as “canonical”.Furthermore, Jerome in the year A.D. 402 defended thedeuteroncanoicaladditions to the book of Daniel:What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant.For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us.(AgainstRufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).I rest may case. It seems clear that Saint Jerome did at one time reject thedeuterocanonicals, but by A.D. 402-404 he had become a defender of them. Saint Jerome was not a dissenter. **

What CARM does not understand, or understands but refuses to accept because that would be conceding a point, is when listing the books, many of the ECF’s were listing books that would be read in the liturgy, if they omit a book, did not mean they considered them uninspired. The following is taken from website I linked to in previous post:

**St. Athanasius, in the Festal letter number 39, gives a list of the canon. Now, of the Deuterocanonicals he does term Baruch as a canonical book. He does exclude the other Deuterocanonicals. He also excludes Esther. So Protestants pointing to him is of no use as his list does not match the Protestant canon. However, as we will also see with St. Cyril of Jerusalem and others, the list of the canon is not all of inspired Scripture, and because books are excluded from the canon does not necessarily mean that they are not Scripture.St. Athanasius says this about the Deuterocanonicals:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity;*that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon,*but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and 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… Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.)

[2]Mark Bonocore elaborates on the possible meaning of St. Athanasius excluding the Deuteros from the canon itself:In regard to Athanasius, what I think we need to consider is that, in his Epistle 39, he is speaking as the Patriarch of Alexandria --a liturgical office. What he seems to be doing, therefore, is defining the Liturgical canon for the Alexandrian Patriarchate (a diocese including all of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis in Palestine …and, by association, Ethiopia). Such an address by a reigning Patriarch can only be Liturgical in nature, and would not …at this time …address the inspiration or lack of inspiration of a particular book. In this, what cannot be denied is that the Egyptian and Libyan Church did believe the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc. to be inspired Scripture. They were unquestionably included in the Alexandrian Septuagint from pre-Christian times; and remain in the Biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews to this very day. (Email from Mark Bonocore, August 2, 2001)

Thus, the theory that we saw at the beginning of this paper, that the term ‘canon’ sometimes only means ‘those books that are read in the Liturgy’ will most seem to fit St. Athanasius when we see him in practice. He is not meaning to describe through the term ‘canon’ the full extent of Scripture. That is what the Protestant apologists falsely assume when he gives us the list. St. Athanasius refers to the Deuterocanonical books according to my count 46 times, as noted in the index of Schaff, NPNF2, Volume 4, which does not in fact give all his writings. Here is a sampling of some of St. Athanasius’ citations and references to the Deuterocanonicals:**

Just a note: there is nothing in the Lutheran Confessions that either explicitly or implicitly excludes the DC books from the canon of scripture. While most Lutherans, in practice, hold the DC’s as “not equal”, that is only in response to the clear level of historical dispute about them throughout the history of the Church.

Jon

By the way, clicking on carm.org/roman-catholicism I notice that there are more articles about Mary than any other topic. So I guess at least we know that obsession-with-Mary is not a valid criticism. :smiley:

I know some Protestants who use Bibles that contain the Apocrypha. :shrug: I don’t think it’s that a big a deal anymore.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.