Apocrapha

[dairygirl4u2c]

so what ever compelled the protestants to remove the deuterocanonical books?

just to lay some foundation in case it matters. so we've been shown that when the bible was formed in the 300s they referred to the deuterocanonical books as "canonical". which seesm to suggest they are as good as any other book. and you've have to strain "canonical", at least from the initial impression it seems a strain.
and the time between the writings of the prot OT books and the gospel is like 500 years i think, or so? significant time. why wouldn't the spirit be working as it always had been?

[scardella]

Ignorance of Church history?
Wanting to remove Scriptural support of certain teachings they didn't accept?
Smoking opium?

I don't know.

[adt6247]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1374841' date='Aug 31 2007, 12:50 PM']so what ever compelled the protestants to remove the deuterocanonical books?

just to lay some foundation in case it matters. so we've been shown that when the bible was formed in the 300s they referred to the deuterocanonical books as "canonical". which seesm to suggest they are as good as any other book. and you've have to strain "canonical", at least from the initial impression it seems a strain.
and the time between the writings of the prot OT books and the gospel is like 500 years i think, or so? significant time. why wouldn't the spirit be working as it always had been?[/quote]
If one has the audacity to rebel from the church, why not also assert the audacity to modify the canon of scripture? This didn't happen until the 1700's or so. Martin Luther wanted to remove the epistle of James as well, because it contained the phrase "faith without works is dead". Calvin had to dance around that, and use some twisted logic that redefined the concept of freedom to make it work in line with double-predestination.

The part of the deuterocanon most protestants find objectionable is 2 Maccabees 12:38-46, which shows the practice among the Jews of praying for the dead, and 2 Maccabees 15:11-17 which asserts intercessory prayer from the dead.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i thought they had reasons. like, it wasn't unanimously used, the apocrapha, even after the council. of coruse you'd all argue it shouldn't matter. but, is that was the arguent is? i need a prot response to this.
but, i just realized the only hard core prot here is budge. and she sure isn't gong to discuss this rationally or stay on topic.

[dairygirl4u2c]

good catholic responses below.
i've yet to hear a good prot one.

[quote]This first section on the history of the deuterocanonical books was written to clarify the myth that these books were added to the cannon of Scripture at the council of Hippo(393), Carthage(397) or Trent (1563). Which is totally unfounded. The first two councils settled a dispute on whether the deuterocanonical books are inspired and the council of Trent only confirmed which books were already in the canon of sacred Scripture in response to the Reformation movement sweeping across Europe and the world. I will begin with the bringing together of the twelve jewish tribes.

Indeed, at about 1000 BC, David united the 12 tribes, set up Jerusalem as the center of his government, and made Isreal a force to be reckoned with in the Middle East. In 961 BC his son, Solomon, succeeded him as king but he eventually fell into the worship of false gods and alienated his people with heavy taxes and forced labor. His son, Rehoboam, continued these policies, and in 922 BC a civil war split the people into two kingdoms – Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Until then their was only one canon of Sacred Scripture.

Poor leadership and the people’s infidelity toward God plagued both kingdoms. In 721 BC and beyond, Israel and Judah were both conquered and persecuted by several different kings and leaders over a period of about 700 years.

By this time there were apparently two collections of sacred books in common use. One, in Hebrew, come to be known as the Palestinian, located in Isreal (northern lands). The other, in Greek, was called the Septuagint (or Alexandrian), located in Judah (southern land). This version included some books written in Greek and Aramaic as well as those translated from Hebrew, and so was larger than the Palestinian collection. Both collections of sacred books were honored by different jewish communities. But since Greek was the common language of the Mediterranean world, the Alexandrian collection became more widespread.

The Alexandrian collection was accepted by Christians as their Old Testament. Since the entire New Testament was written in Greek for Greek-speaking Christians of Jewish and gentile origin, New Testament writers used the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament. They usually quoted the Old Testament from the Alexandrian version and frequently referred to the books found only in this version.

The early Christians were seen as a Jewish Sect and these Christians were using the Jewish Scriptures to draw people away from the Law of Judaism. This Threat to Judaism brought about the decision to reject the deuterocanonical books by only accepting books that were written in Palestine as an attempt separate themselves from the Christians since they were using the Alexandrian collection. This decision was done some 60 years after the death of our Lord, and twenty years after the fall of Jerusalem, at the council of Jamnia.

Christianity was well under way for about 60 years and they saw no reason to find the council of Jamnia as binding to them. We also need to realize that this council was actually a school and it is quite questionable if this council had the authority to make such decisions for the Christian or even Jewish community.

This entire paper came to be as an argument against the myths or excuses for taking the deuterocanonical books out of the canon of Scripture. What we need to realize is that these books were always considered part of Scripture. The reason the deuterocanonical books aren’t in the Protestant bible is because Martin Luther threw them out. Early Christians accepted the deuterocanonicals because they were in the Septuagint, and that’s what the apostles used. For 1500 years the bible contained 73 books. Then a disgruntled monk comes along and throws out seven of the Old Testament books because they conflict with his beliefs, and then adds words to scripture (“only” in Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15, “alone” in Romans 3:28) to support his new doctrine on justification. The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple” A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates back from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament and use the anti-christian council of Jamnia, which has no binding authority on Christians, to reject the deuterocanonical books. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, “New Testament deuterocanonicals.”

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals) yet they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!


Deuterocanonical books = Judith, Tobit, 1,2 Maccabbees, Wisdom, Ecclisiasticus (Sirach), Baruch and parts of Daniel and Esther.

Apocrypha = All other texts not inspired written in approximatly the same time period (within a few centuries).[/quote]

[quote]When Martin Luther first formed the Lutheran church, he set about rebuilding the Bible based only on texts that he could personally find the originals for. He was largely successful, and the result is the Protestant Bible we have today. The series of books contained in the Apocrypha were ones that he could not find the original texts for, and so he omitted them from the Bible.

Since that time, the original texts have been found, and the books in the Apocrypha have been verified as accurate.[/quote]

[CatherineM]

I just wanted to add when we went over this in Christology last semester, we discussed that the Leaders of the community at Jamnia removed books that were messianic. They basically threw them out to lessen the new Christian sect's ability to use them to substantiate Christ's message. I like the idea that the old testament canon that I read from is the same canon that Jesus grew up reading from in the synagogue.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/jeromedeuteros.html"]http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deutero...medeuteros.html[/url]

that explains wehat i'd been thinking about prot arguments. there were some disputes afrter the initial councils, hippo and carthage etc. but it was not the majority and those who dissented did so because of heretial books casting doubt etc. you can read it yourself.

[Cure of Ars]

I think they would say that they go with the Hebrew canon. After the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. the Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books. They did this because the books were in Greek and because they had passages that supported Christ.

Luther was trying to get back to the pure, slim, trim, faith. What he saw as man made traditions were supported in the deuterocanonical books so it was easier to go back to the Hebrew canon to defend his position. If you go back to the Church fathers the story gets more complicated on what books different Church fathers saw as inspired. Some even thought some works were inspired but that they were not meant to be read in the liturgy. Some would have added other books to the cannon. You sould ask a protestant. They will give a better reason but I think that is the reason they would give.

[Archaeology cat]

Um, basically when I was Baptist we were taught that we used the OT that the Jews used, being the Hebrew canon. We were also taught that the deuteros contained things that contradicted the rest of Scripture, that they were never seen as inspired because Jesus and the Apostles didn't quote from them, and there may have been one other reason. Cant remember now. Ive also heard another reason for rejecting them is that there were no prophets during that time. This is actually one of the arguments that Jamnia used, if I'm not mistaken. Of course, none of those arguments really works, but those are the reasons I was given growing up.

[abercius24]

Yes, the Jews at the Council of Jamnia and Martin Luther (some 1400 years later) both refused to recognize the Deterocanonicals because they had no Hebrew copies, which was the language they regarded as sacred at the time. I should remind everyone that the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls invalidates that position. We have found fragments, if not whole copies, of every Deterocanonical book in the Hebrew languages amidst the Dead Sea Scrolls. And as many of you know, these copies belonged to the Essenes, the desert Jewish community that John the Baptist (and possibly Christ) communed with in the wilderness. Scott Hahn suggests that the Essenes were the greater part of the Early Church converts, pointing out that the Last Supper was held in an Essene district of Jerusalem. This relationship with the Essenes may explain why the Early Church felt so comfortable using the Septuagint (the Greek copies of the Jewish Dispersion), because they were aware of companion Hebrew copies kept by the Essenes.

Oh and by the way, not only did Luther want to remove the Epistle of James, but he wanted to remove the Book of Revelation. Again, his followers would not let him get away with this, just as they stopped him in the case of the Epistle of James. Could you imagine how different Protestant and Fundamentalist Christians would be if they had followed Luther's advice? The "Left Behind" book series would certainly have been less popular today if that were the case!