Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books

Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books – Short Answer
By Gary Michuta
catholic-convert.com/blog/2014/04/30/why-protestants-reject-7-books-of-the-bible-the-short-answer/

The short answer is this: When Luther was cornered in a debate over Purgatory, his opponent, Johann Eck, cited 2 Maccabees against Luther’s position. Luther was forced to say that Second Maccabees could not be allowed in the debate because it wasn’t canonical. Later in the debate, Luther appealed to St. Jerome for rejecting Maccabees (the councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Florence all included Macabees as canonical Scripture).

By appealing to Jerome, he also rejected all the other books Jerome rejected (Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Daniel 13, and sections of Esther).

From then on, Luther (and all Protestants) have been trying to justify this removal. Luther in 1534 thought Baruch was ”too skimpy” and not lofty enough to be from the scribe of Jeremiah. He also had problems with certain historical elements in Baruch. But in the long run, it really came down to Jerome’s rejection.

As a side note, Jerome rejected it because he thought that a Hebrew manuscript tradition, known as the Masoretic Text, was identical to the inspired originals and all other copies were made from this text. Since the Deuteros were not part of the MT, he rejected them as not being of the canonical Scripture.

What Jerome could not have known was that there were many different Hebrew manuscripts in circulation during the first century and that the Greek Septuagint, a translation made by the Jews around 200 BC, at least in parts, appears to be a very literal translation of a more ancient Hebrew text tradition that is now lost.

This means that Jerome’s idea of “Hebrew truth” (I.e., only that which is found in the Hebrew MT is true) has been demonstrated to be an error. With Jerome’s position no longer tenable, Protestantism really doesn’t have a historical leg to stand on in regards to their OT canon.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-luther-removed-2-maccabees-from.html

I think the most interesting part of the discussion is that, at the time Luther debated Eck, he still believed in Purgatory.

Be that as it may, I do not reject the Deuterocanonicals and our Confessions refer to them as Scripture.

Does your communion use them in your liturgy?

But many will tell you Luther never removed those books.

My 10 year old son’s non-denom friend just asked me out of the blue why Catholics have all “those extra books in their Bible”! Will this misinformation ever go away?

Yes, we do. We also make pretty heavy use of them in our hymnody, as well.

He didn’t, He just placed them in a secondary position. I think it was more that his attitude toward them was strong enough that it justified, in most Protestant’s minds, removing them altogether. At least no one was upset enough to not buy Bibles from the printer who removed them. :shrug:

Yes,I have read the same from many scholars too.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

No…:shrug:

Not at all.

I am fine with them. I like Sirach particularly.

But I have never heard them read in our liturgy or lectionary.

Luther exceeded all others before him, who questioned the Deuterocanonical books.

Luther relabeled them as Apocrypha as uninspired of God. Sure St.Jerome, St.Augustine and other’s questioned them, but they never relabeled them as Apocrypha.

Where did Luther get such authority and power to re-label canonized books of the bible, that were canonized centuries before his time, and influence the protestant movement to follow his example?

Randy Carson;11964692]Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books – Short Answer
By Gary Michuta
catholic-convert.com/blog/2014/04/30/why-protestants-reject-7-books-of-the-bible-the-short-answer/

The short answer is this: When Luther was cornered in a debate over Purgatory, his opponent, Johann Eck, cited 2 Maccabees against Luther’s position. Luther was forced to say that Second Maccabees could not be allowed in the debate because it wasn’t canonical. Later in the debate, Luther appealed to St. Jerome for rejecting Maccabees (the councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Florence all included Macabees as canonical Scripture).

By appealing to Jerome, he also rejected all the other books Jerome rejected (Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Daniel 13, and sections of Esther).

Technically, St.Jerome informed the Pope of his time, who commissioned Jerome to transliterate the already canonized Deutero books from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek into the Vulgate =Latin text.

St. Jerome questioned the Deutero’s because he did not have the original Hebrew counter parts to transliterate them only the Greek.When he approached the Pope about his dilemma, the Pope instructed Jerome to include them in the Vulgate, because Jesus and the apostles taught from them and quoted from the Deutero’s. Jerome conceded.

There are over 300 deutero quotes and references in the New Testament scriptures.

As a side note:
I don’t think most Protestants even know the Deutero-canonicals even exist. It was only after (or about) the time I married my wife that I even found out about them, so close to thirty years and I had never heard of them.

M

Not recently. :o

Older Lutheran lectionaries do have them - after Vatican II, we responded by copying the Catholic lectionary and do some even weirder things to it, like remove the Apocrypha and make it even more disjointed.

There is a proposed Lutheran lectionary that put things right (where the readings work together) and puts the majority of the Apocrypha in the third reading

cyberbrethren.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Daily-Lectionary.pdf

This is perhaps the saddest part of American Protestantism - it inherited England’s decidedly anti-Catholic-for-the-sake-of-being-anti-Catholic attitude. While American Lutherans may have also fallen into the “Protestant” bible craze, Lutherans in Europe never adopted the shorter book. On either continent, Lutherans abide by their Confessions, which do not list a canon. And the traditional Divine Service uses deuterocanonical sources extensively. Hymns too.

If you’re WELS, you do, actually. Not cited or read from during the readings, but part of the Divine Service.

Factually untrue. St. Jerome was the first to label them with the term “Apocrypha.”

Depends on the synod. While WELS may not use them in liturgy, other synods do, in varying degrees. I’d like to see the LCMS use them in the lectionary.

A brief blog from Pastor Will Weedon
weedon.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-public-reading-of-apocrypha.html

And hymns such as “Now Thank We All Our God”, and “It Came Upon aMidnight CLear” have their roots in the DC books.

Jon

Ah, so WELS does use them, they simply aren’t cited or read from the lectionary - just like 95% of the LCMS. Whew. I was about to be very confused. I’ve always found the Divine Service and Lutheran hymnody to be more or less identical across Synodical lines. I was forming a question as to why/when WELS would’ve departed from Lutheran traditional practice - abandonment of orthodoxy isn’t exactly a WELS trademark. :smiley:

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.