Why Does the Roman Catholic Church Accept the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (The Deuterocanonical Books) as Holy Scripture?

[DudleySmith]

Some issues came up in a thread on JW's and their doctrines re Catholics, but rather than help derail that thread I'll post this in its own thread for informational purposes,as some here don't seem to be aware of some basic Catholic views on 'canon'.

Why Does the Roman Catholic Church Accept the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (The Deuterocanonical Books) as Holy Scripture? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: Why Does the Roman Catholic Church Accept the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (The Deuterocanonical Books) as Holy Scripture?

www.blueletterbible.org

Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not in agreement as to the exact limits of Old Testament Scripture. Protestants believe and teach that there are only thirty-nine books that makeup the Old Testament. Roman Catholicism, however, teaches that the Old Testament consists of these thirty-nine books as well as seven additional books. Furthermore, the Roman Church also teaches that two books of the Old Testament, Daniel and Esther, have longer sections in them which Protestants delete. These additions are called the deuterocanonical books, or second canon books, by Roman Catholics and the Old Testament Apocrypha by Protestants. Roman Catholics call them deuterocanonical books, not because they are inferior to the proto-canonical, or first canon books, but rather because their status was decided later in history.


Who is correct? Which books belong in the Old Testament as part of Holy Scripture? Why does Roman Catholicism believe these additional books, and parts of books, constitute sacred Scripture that have been wrongly deleted by Protestants?

....followed by a list of reasons.

As for me personally, I think the word 'Canon' isn't really a correct word re the choice of biblical texts, since many of the books have little to do with law. If I had to make a list of the most essential books they would be the Pentateuch, the first parts of Isaiah, the four Gospels, the 3 Johns, Hebrews, and Revelations, but that's just me. In any case, I found the exposition in the link to be informative and worth posting for the Peanut Gallery.

 

[justinacolmena]

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - King James Version

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[justinacolmena]

Furthermore, the Roman Church also teaches that two books of the Old Testament, Daniel and Esther, have longer sections in them which Protestants delete. These additions are called the deuterocanonical books, or second canon books, by Roman Catholics and the Old Testament Apocrypha by Protestants

The Protestants do not refuse to read these books or take instruction from them; it's just that they were not part of the official canon of the Jews known to Christians as the Old Testament, yet they appeared before the time of Jesus, so they cannot officially be considered part of the New Testament either.

It's a technical matter of official classification, not a significant difference in doctrine.

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

Trying to look impressive, having a bigger Bible. The Catholic church does not know the Bible. They made the soul that sins it shall die, to be the soul that sins, it shall live, no matter what, with eternal suffering.

 

[justinacolmena]

Trying to look impressive, having a bigger Bible. The Catholic church does not know the Bible. They made the soul that sins it shall die, to be the soul that sins, it shall live, no matter what, with eternal suffering.

Hell is real. There really are people that evil. The soul and spirit, once created, are indestructible.

 

[Colin norris]

Some issues came up in a thread on JW's and their doctrines re Catholics, but rather than help derail that thread I'll post this in its own thread for informational purposes,as some here don't seem to be aware of some basic Catholic views on 'canon'.

Why Does the Roman Catholic Church Accept the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (The Deuterocanonical Books) as Holy Scripture? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: Why Does the Roman Catholic Church Accept the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (The Deuterocanonical Books) as Holy Scripture?

www.blueletterbible.org

Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not in agreement as to the exact limits of Old Testament Scripture. Protestants believe and teach that there are only thirty-nine books that makeup the Old Testament. Roman Catholicism, however, teaches that the Old Testament consists of these thirty-nine books as well as seven additional books. Furthermore, the Roman Church also teaches that two books of the Old Testament, Daniel and Esther, have longer sections in them which Protestants delete. These additions are called the deuterocanonical books, or second canon books, by Roman Catholics and the Old Testament Apocrypha by Protestants. Roman Catholics call them deuterocanonical books, not because they are inferior to the proto-canonical, or first canon books, but rather because their status was decided later in history.


Who is correct? Which books belong in the Old Testament as part of Holy Scripture? Why does Roman Catholicism believe these additional books, and parts of books, constitute sacred Scripture that have been wrongly deleted by Protestants?

....followed by a list of reasons.

As for me personally, I think the word 'Canon' isn't really a correct word re the choice of biblical texts, since many of the books have little to do with law. If I had to make a list of the most essential books they would be the Pentateuch, the first parts of Isaiah, the four Gospels, the 3 Johns, Hebrews, and Revelations, but that's just me. In any case, I found the exposition in the link to be informative and worth posting for the Peanut Gallery.

Peanut gallery indeed.
If you believe anything from those books, you are the peanut gallery.

Don't waste your time with religion.
There is no God etc. It's a big con.

 

[Meriweather]

In the second century Jews settled on a revised Canon. The Catholic Church, always strong on tradition stuck with Old Testament scripture as it was in Jesus' day. During the Reformation, Protestants (not knowing when Jews settled on their own Canon) simply decided it was the Catholics who added books, not the Jews who had dropped books.

There is nothing wrong with Protestants thinking Jews know the Old Testament best; there is nothing wrong with Catholics sticking with the Old Testament as it was in Jesus' day. The Deuterocanonical books have great stories with great lessons, and I have always enjoyed reading them.

 

[DudleySmith]

All of my 'Protestant' bibles include the Apocrypha; they just separate them from the the OT and NT and designate then as non-canon. 'Canon' is kind of misnomer, in any case; both Jews and Christians read other religious literature, like 'The Shepherd of Hermas' and other texts, Jews read a large number of 'outside' texts; they just didn't include them in the 'canon' for a number of reasons, repetition and passion literature being a couple of reasons, and uncertain provenance. The latter didn't stop them from including Hebrews, though, since it held an important message so they included it anyway. All of the 'books' in the NT were known and mentioned in letters and writings very early on, between 90 A.D. and 120 A.D., so it would have been impossible for to fake and rewrite anything in 320 A.D., Roman emperor or no. Christian believers didn't cave in to the demands of Roman Emperors in the previous 300 years, so it's just stupid to claim they suddenly rolled over for Constantine and let him rewrite a lot of stuff.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Deuterocanonical books have great stories with great lessons, and I have always enjoyed reading them.

Indeed. Some good history and cultural info there, among other enlightenment.

 

[Theowl32]

The original KJV included the deuterocannonicals which the protestants call Apocryphal writings. They were certainly part of the official Jewish writings when Christ walked the earth and there is nothing even suggested that they were false.

The Jews after the destruction of their Temple in 70ad removed them. By then that authority was taken from them and was given to Christ's Church. From HIS WORDS.

The official cannon was not actually made official until the end of the 4th century. Most people don't know that.

We also know that the original KJV included those books when it was written in 1611 and they were taken out of the original KJV in 1829. So now it is the NEW KJV.

Also, it isn't just Catholics, it is also included with many of the Eastern Rite churches. Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox along with the Coptics.

Martin Luther wanted to get rid of many other books. Including the Epistle of James, Revelation and Hebrews. There is a verse in Hebrews 11:35 that is eluding to something that is in Maccanees 2 7:14.


There is a great divide (nothing new) in the Church. Especially since the establishment of Vatican II and the liturgical TRADITIONS.

Paul writes in several places to HOLD FAST TO THE TRADITIONS AS WE HAVE PAST THEM ON TO YOU. The first century Christians didn't seem to have this urgency to get everyone a copy of 73 scrolls.

Do we think Peter only wrote 2 letters? There must have been many. We also know that the world wasn't educated like today. Very small percentage of the public could read and write.

Hence the HOLDING FAST TO TRADITIONS. The Church in my estimation has gone away from its sacred liturgy. Was never banned but this pope is trying to and we aren't having it.



I attend a Maronite Church. Liturgy is done in several languages. The consecration is done in Aramaic language. We receive on our tongues at a kneeler.

Anyway hope that helps.

 

[Theowl32]

All of my 'Protestant' bibles include the Apocrypha; they just separate them from the the OT and NT and designate then as non-canon. 'Canon' is kind of misnomer, in any case; both Jews and Christians read other religious literature, like 'The Shepherd of Hermas' and other texts, Jews read a large number of 'outside' texts; they just didn't include them in the 'canon' for a number of reasons, repetition and passion literature being a couple of reasons, and uncertain provenance. The latter didn't stop them from including Hebrews, though, since it held an important message so they included it anyway. All of the 'books' in the NT were known and mentioned in letters and writings very early on, between 90 A.D. and 120 A.D., so it would have been impossible for to fake and rewrite anything in 320 A.D., Roman emperor or no. Christian believers didn't cave in to the demands of Roman Emperors in the previous 300 years, so it's just stupid to claim they suddenly rolled over for Constantine and let him rewrite a lot of stuff.

The Council of Nicea had nothing to with Biblical Cannon. That is a false notion put out by the DaVinci Code. One of a lot of falsehoods put out by that movie. That council was to settle a great schism in church about the Trinity. It was called Arianism where there was a great divide about the true DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

The Emperor Constantine had nothing to do about the books of the Bible. He did save Christianity though from being wiped out by Maxentius who was going to carry out the 4 edicts of Emperor Diocletian. Where from 303ad to 312ad began the most severe time in Christian Martyrdom in history.

Look up the Battle of Milvian Bridge and the vision Constantine saw and what he had painted on his soldiers shields.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Council of Nicea had nothing to with Biblical Cannon. That is a false notion put out by the DaVinci Code. One of a lot of falsehoods put out by that movie. That council was to settle a great schism in church about the Trinity. It was called Arianism where there was a great divide about the true DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

The Emperor Constantine had nothing to do about the books of the Bible. He did save Christianity though from being wiped out by Maxentius who was going to carry out the 4 edicts of Emperor Diocletian. Where from 303ad to 312ad began the most severe time in Christian Martyrdom in history.

Look up the Battle of Milvian Bridge and the vision Constantine saw and what he had painted on his soldiers shields.

Yes, I know; the constant claim among some is that Constantine rewrote a lot of stuff and forced all the Bishops to change up the theology from the original. Usually it's to promote some sort of Gnostic rubbish or other or to discredit the bible in some way or other and then peddle some rewrite of their own as credible.

Licinius and Galerius also did their own attempts at purges, and of course Diocletian had just ran the worst purge ever before the Tetrarchy took over. One commentator said the gathering of the Bishops at Nicea looked like a convention of beggars, so many of them were crippled form being tortured and mutilated.

 

[Thors Provoni]

The “Greek-only” section of Daniel has Daniel being in the lion’s den A WHOLE WEEK, as well as the normal account that just has him there overnight. They both cannot be true.

 

[surada]

The Protestants do not refuse to read these books or take instruction from them; it's just that they were not part of the official canon of the Jews known to Christians as the Old Testament, yet they appeared before the time of Jesus, so they cannot officially be considered part of the New Testament either.

It's a technical matter of official classification, not a significant difference in doctrine.

It's hard to understand the first century if you don't know about Antiochus IV, the Abomination of Desolation and the Maccabean war or conversion of the Edomites.

 

[Thors Provoni]

Our book of Esther from the Masoretic text nev r mentions God.
But the Greek-only additions to Esther do mention God.

 

[Thors Provoni]

@it USER=77344]surada[/USER] - do you think Daniel was written during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes?
I am undecided.

 

[surada]

@it USER=77344]surada[/USER] - do you think Daniel was written during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes?
I am undecided.

Yes.. sometime between 168-164 BC. He persecuted the Jews in his extreme efforts to Hellenize them including defiling the temple.

 

[Thors Provoni]

He was a bad dude, and the first ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION was when he sacrificd a pig on the altar. But Jesus told His followers to look for another one, and they did - and fled to Pella around 70 AD

 

[CommieKillingMommy]

Some issues came up in a thread on JW's and their doctrines re Catholics, but rather than help derail that thread I'll post this in its own thread for informational purposes,as some here don't seem to be aware of some basic Catholic views on 'canon'.

Why Does the Roman Catholic Church Accept the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (The Deuterocanonical Books) as Holy Scripture? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: Why Does the Roman Catholic Church Accept the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (The Deuterocanonical Books) as Holy Scripture?

www.blueletterbible.org

Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not in agreement as to the exact limits of Old Testament Scripture. Protestants believe and teach that there are only thirty-nine books that makeup the Old Testament. Roman Catholicism, however, teaches that the Old Testament consists of these thirty-nine books as well as seven additional books. Furthermore, the Roman Church also teaches that two books of the Old Testament, Daniel and Esther, have longer sections in them which Protestants delete. These additions are called the deuterocanonical books, or second canon books, by Roman Catholics and the Old Testament Apocrypha by Protestants. Roman Catholics call them deuterocanonical books, not because they are inferior to the proto-canonical, or first canon books, but rather because their status was decided later in history.


Who is correct? Which books belong in the Old Testament as part of Holy Scripture? Why does Roman Catholicism believe these additional books, and parts of books, constitute sacred Scripture that have been wrongly deleted by Protestants?

....followed by a list of reasons.

As for me personally, I think the word 'Canon' isn't really a correct word re the choice of biblical texts, since many of the books have little to do with law. If I had to make a list of the most essential books they would be the Pentateuch, the first parts of Isaiah, the four Gospels, the 3 Johns, Hebrews, and Revelations, but that's just me. In any case, I found the exposition in the link to be informative and worth posting for the Peanut Gallery.

Trust me when I tell you that I am probably the only one here who will answer this question correctly. The Deuterocanonicals are seven books: Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel.

First, I recommend you read this article: "Defending The Deuterocanonicals" by James Akin:

Defending The Deuterocanonicals | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

QUOTE:
"In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."
Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).
Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ." UNQUOTE

The fact is that the deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. But the Rabbis, on order to combat the spreading Christian cult, met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels and the seven deuterocanonicals, to be unfit.

During the protestant reformation, the protestants decided to go with the Rabbis conclusions, The Catholics, as well as the Eastern Orthodox, went with what the apostles handed down. After all, the apostles were the teachers appointed by Jesus, not the anti-Christian Rabbis. Why would we obey the Rabbis and not the Apostles?

Thats the short of it. Read the article.

 

[DudleySmith]

Trust me when I tell you that I am probably the only one here who will answer this question correctly. The Deuterocanonicals are seven books: Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel.

First, I recommend you read this article: "Defending The Deuterocanonicals" by James Akin:

Defending The Deuterocanonicals | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

QUOTE:
"In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."
Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).
Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ." UNQUOTE

The fact is that the deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. But the Rabbis, on order to combat the spreading Christian cult, met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels and the seven deuterocanonicals, to be unfit.

During the protestant reformation, the protestants decided to go with the Rabbis conclusions, The Catholics, as well as the Eastern Orthodox, went with what the apostles handed down. After all, the apostles were the teachers appointed by Jesus, not the anti-Christian Rabbis. Why would we obey the Rabbis and not the Apostles?

Thats the short of it. Read the article.

As was pointed out in the article I posted. My opinion is Luther was correct in settling for the Masoretic texts and rejecting those 7 not in it since none of them are mentioned in the NT. The Protestants also rejected removing several books Luther wanted to remove from the NT as well, so obviously Luther wasn't 100% in control of the Protestant 'canon'. And neither was Jerome
the last word' on which books to include either. The rejection had nothing to do with Jamnia, the questions of provenance were around among Jews long before them, in Jesus's time as well. Nobody included Josephus's writings, nor books like the Shepherd of Herma in the canon, all of them also read by Christians along with other Jewish works that weren't included but well known.


This blogger sums it up as well as anybody.

Why are the Apocrypha Not in the Protestant Bible?​

The Reformers studied how we got the Bible and how it was compiled. They were truth seekers, which is a good thing. They found concerning things about the Apocrypha.


It started with the fact the Jewish people themselves did not consider the Apocrypha to be part of the Old Testament Bible. The keepers of the Law who lived in Israel at the time of Jesus did not keep them with the rest of the Bible. They also did not refer to them as Bible. So the Hebrew Old Testament read by the Jewish people did not include the Apocrypha. The Jewish people were aware of the books and read them. They just treated them as history and not inspired Scripture. This position never seems to have changed. This should be enough alone to give us pause as they are Old Testament books.


Are you beginning to see how far back this question goes?


It continued with the fact that Jesus, the Apostles, and the writers of the New Testament never once quote the Apocrypha. Not once among the many references made by Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the like did any of them say “As Scripture says in…” and cite Tobit or Maccabees. These men quote the Bible in every speech they make. Jesus quotes as far back as Genesis and relies on Deuteronomy to fight off Satan’s temptation. They also quote non-Christian sources and lost books on a number of occasions. They had the Apocrypha, clearly, yet they did not cite to it once. It is a glaring and I believe damning omission.


The early church also had problems with these books from the start. Many early Christians were against the Apocrypha. The Church council of Laodicea in 363 AD considered the Apocrypha, for example. They not only rejected these books as Scripture but also forbade reading these books by the church. Early church leaders like Origen, Melito, Cyril, and Athanasius joined in and all wrote against the Apocrypha. They made the same arguments as those above. The basic conclusion of these folks was the books were useful for some things but were not Holy Scripture.


If you stop here – about 400 years after Jesus – you again understand why their are significant issues about these books.


Then a simple decision by one guy named Jerome entered the narrative and caused all sorts of confusion that persists to this day.

The Vulgate​

Jerome was a church leader in the late 300’s. He was commissioned by the Bishop of Rome to create the Latin Vulgate. This was the “official” translation into Latin of whole Bible. Jerome did not believe the Apocrypha were inspired. He agreed that the Jewish people in Israel never treated them as Scripture. He acknowledged they had not changed that position. Jerome’s position was consistent with the Jews and many others in the early church. Jerome also departed from the norm of that day. He understood Hebrew so he translated from the original Hebrew Old Testament rather than the more common Greek version. This formed the foundation of his position. Yet, when the Vulgate was completed in 405 AD, he included the Apocrypha in the Bible. It appears to have been a concession to the pro-Apocrypha position of part of the church. Jerome wrote introductions to each of them indicating they were helpful but not Scripture. Yet, the timing and inclusion would have long lasting repercussions.

The church change described above took place in the centuries that followed while Latin was the dominant language. People simply got used to the Apocrypha being included among the books of the Bible. Jerome’s introductions were still there saying they were not canon but most people did not even have a Bible during the years that followed. The Catholic Church did not get rid of the issues with the disputed books. It did not add any new scholarship or insight. But the inclusion of the books alongside the inspired ones in the official translation made them hard to tell apart. The “official” church also forbade anyone from disagreeing with them. What did that look like? When William Tyndale had the gall to translate the Bible into English so people could read it, he was executed as a heretic. You can understand why the arguments died down as a result. The Vulgate and all translations based on it therefore included the Apocrypha for many years.

These questions all came back up with Luther and the Reformers. They asked the same questions that the early church did, now without threat of death. The reformers found themselves agreeing with the Jews, many early churchmen, Jerome, and with the early church council:

The books of the Apocrypha are not bad, but they are not part of the Bible.

Did Martin Luther Remove Books from the Bible? A Pastor’s Answer | Pastor Unlikely

Why Does the Catholic Bible have more Books in it? I love answering questions about the Christian faith online, in person, and by email. The …

pastorunlikely.com