Books not contained in the Protestant Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter kfuller124
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kfuller124

Guest
I am a Protestant but have been drawn to the Catholic Church for some time. I am very close to the point of wanting to convert. I’ve studied many of the doctrines of the Catholic faith and I believe there is so much truth there. I did come across something the other day that troubled me. I was aware that the Catholic bible contains books that the Protestant bible does not. I did not have an issue with this until I read that these books ( the deuterocanonical books) are not quoted in the New Testament at all, whereas nearly all the Old Testament books are. I wondered then if these books are included in the canon by the Catholic Church why are they not quoted in the New Testament?
 
I believe if you make an accusation, you should always provide evidence. Show me how they’re not quoted in the New Testament.
 
No, my understanding is that there are many quotes from the Deuterocanon in the NT.

I think a lot of the difficulty of identifying NT quotes from the Deuterocanon is due to the fact that the NT authors apparently used the Septuagint version of the OT, and almost all modern Bibles use the Masoretic text of the OT. The translations are different.

I know that there are references to events and persons in the NT that are only found in the Deuterocanonical books of the OT. For instance, Revelation describes the “seven spirits of God” that stand before the Throne. One of those seven spirits can be found in the book of Tobit: Raphael the Archangel. He introduces himself as ‘one of the seven that stands before God’. Thanks to Tobit, we now know a little more about these seven spirits.

In one of the books of Maccabees, we find out about the feast of the dedication, which is mentioned in John. Jesus went to the Temple for the feast. Without Maccabees, we would not know what this feast was.

There are prophecies about the Messiah in the Deuterocanon, as well as Catholic doctrines like purgatory and saintly intercession from heaven. Even Martin Luther thought the Deuterocanon was “profitable to read”. They have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and were obviously being read by the Jews of that day.

You might also remember that some of the OT books in the Protestant bible are not quoted at all in the NT.

There are many articles you can google about Deuterocanonical quotes found in the New Testament. Here’s one:

 
You might want to check out the book “why catholic bibles are bigger” by Gary Michuta. With respect to your criteria that it must be mentioned in the new testment, this is problematic since some of the accepted books by protestants such as nahum(and a lot more but cant remember as of writing) were not mentioned nor alluded to in the NT.
 
Thanks so much. This will definitely help to clear some questions up.
 
Dear K,
Walking w Christ and following His lead, is wonderful. I was told that the Deuterocanonical books were books read by Jesus in His life teaching in the Temple. As one replied noted they were found in some DEAD SEA SCROLLS. This affirms there use in that day. When Constantine order getting books together for a Bible, many scrolls were reviewed. The Council felt the Holy Spirit enlightened the books kept in Protestant Bible. The Catholics included all w the Deuterocanonical.
A Baptist Minister was dying w Cancer. Sad. I was comforting his wife. I told her the reading I would like to share was from the extra books in Catholic Bible. She agreed. It was WISDOM chapter:3.

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. 2 In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction,3 and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. 4 For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality. 5 Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; 6 like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them.

She had it printed for the Mrmorial hand out. One can feel the Holy Spirit in those words.
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice
 
Another assault against the Deuterocanonicals was launched by the Bible Societies of the early 19th century, and even before that, the Oxford edition of 1769 of the KJV of the Bible had all marginal references that pointed to the apocryphal books expunged. There was a conscious deliberate effort by Protestant publishers to accommodate the greatest readership possible, while at the same time reducing cost by means of a smaller bible. The fundamentalist or Evangelical branches of Protestantism had vehement objections to the Apocrypha, whereas the Church of England, and other high church factions, continued to venerate and include the Apocrypha. But with time, the majority ruled, and the Apocrypha became less and less found in Protestant bibles.
 
Wow these are such beautiful words! Thank you so much for sharing this with me.
 
kfuller124 said:
until I read that these books ( the deuterocanonical books) are not quoted in the New Testament at all, whereas nearly all the Old Testament books are. I wondered then if these books are included in the canon by the Catholic Church why are they not quoted in the New Testament?
Click to expand...
.

The Protestant King James Version Bible had many marginal notes in the New Testament referencing these Deuterocanonical Books, So Called Apocryphal.

Here is one found in Heb 11:35 referencing 2 Maccabees 7:7

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

You can scroll up and down on this page below to see many more.

http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/orthdomain/bible.html#we

At this page below you can read the text of these allusions.

http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical3.html#heb

 
Last edited:
Not contained in which Protestant Bible? As others have pointed out, the 1611 version of the King James Bible, the definitive Protestant Bible, contained all of the books of the so-called Apocrypha, and thus all the ‘extra’ books of the Catholic Bible. It was only in later editions, presumably meant for use by non-Anglicans, that these books were left out.
 
Nahum, Ruth and Esther. None were quoted. It’s also doubtful Songs or Ecclesiastes were quoted.

Sirach was alluded to multiple times.
 
If your reason for not accepting the Deuterocanon was that it wasn’t quoted directly in the NT, then you’d also have to reject the following OT books which are not quoted:

Judges

Ruth

Ezra

Esther

Ecclesiastes

Songs

Lamentations

Obadiah

Jonah

Zephaniah

And possibly Nahum

That’s 10 or 11 protocanonical OT books you should also reject if that’s your criteria for canonicity.
 
Also, as many times as I’ve read thru the Bible. A month or so ago I was reading Wisdom at Adoration. I was thunderstruck how closely ch 5 on spiritual warfare mirrors Ephesians ch 6 on spiritual warfare. I had missed that previously.
 
kfuller124 said:
I am a Protestant but have been drawn to the Catholic Church for some time. I am very close to the point of wanting to convert.
Click to expand...
Excellent! May God finish in you what He has started!
I’ve studied many of the doctrines of the Catholic faith and I believe there is so much truth there. I did come across something the other day that troubled me. I was aware that the Catholic bible contains books that the Protestant bible does not. I did not have an issue with this until I read that these books ( the deuterocanonical books) are not quoted in the New Testament at all, whereas nearly all the Old Testament books are.
Click to expand...
You’ve received many excellent answers about this objection. Therefore, I won’t get into it.
I wondered then if these books are included in the canon by the Catholic Church why are they not quoted in the New Testament?
Click to expand...
I think the responses you’ve received can be summarized, thus:
  1. Some of them are quoted.
http://jimmyakin.com/deuterocanonical-references-in-the-new-testament
  1. As you noted, some of the 66 books in the Protestant OT are not quoted. Should we reject those?
  2. The original Protestant OT used to include the deuterocanonicals. They were called the “apocryphal” books and they were in the back.
Here’s what I would like to add.

The deuterocanonicals have been in the Bible from day 1. The reason that they are no longer in the Protestant bible is because they contradict Protestant doctrine. This is why Luther denied their inspiration and his followers later removed them from Scripture all together.

I hope that helps.
 
Hi, K!

I think that you are a little misguided… did you know that the Septuagint was the version used by Jesus and the Apostles?

These books which non-Catholics exclude were indeed part of that compilation–interestingly enough, the original kings James included them; these books were not removed until several versions later.

Now, as for quoting… have you read Ephesians 6?
6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
17 Therefore shall they receive a kingdom of glory, and a crown of beauty at the hand of the Lord: for with his right hand he will cover them, and with his holy arm he will defend them. 18 And his zeal will take armour, and he will arm the creature for the revenge of his enemies. 19 He will put on justice as a breastplate, and will take true judgment instead of a helmet. 20 He will take equity for an invincible shield: (Wisdom 5)
Click to expand...
Consider:
Given the many points of contact between the Book of Wisdom and Paul’s writings (particularly his Epistle to the Romans), it is perhaps unsurprising that the imagery of the Armor of God would be used here. Compare the various elements of the whole armor of God mentioned in the epistle to the Ephesians to Wisdom 5:17-20: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_of_God)

…and consider too Wisdom’s:
15:7 The potter also tempering soft earth, with labour fashioneth every vessel for our service, and of the same clay he maketh both vessels that are for clean uses, and likewise such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of these vessels, the potter is the judge.
18:1 But thy saints had a very great light, and they heard their voice indeed, but did not see their shape. And because they also did not suffer the same things, they glorified thee:
Click to expand...
The passages above can find direct correlation to St. Paul’s admonishment of the vessels and his adamant use of the term “Saints” to signify those in Fellowship with Christ… can you remember these two different passages… and the term Saint, do you remember any other book in Scriptures using this to single out Servants of Yahweh God?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Dear K,
It is important to stay w Holy Spirit, for guidance. Feelings can be fickle at times. So, hold onto a rock then. But, God’s truth generates a warm joy in your heart, that you have arrived. As my pts wife did, she felt the Holy Spirit from Wisdom.
“The Truth shall set you free.! “
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
 
Last edited:
There’s books not referenced in the New Testament which are in Protestant Bibles. Joshua and Song of Songs among them.

Luther also wanted to take books out of the New Testament such as James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. It wasn’t well received however his original bible translation still has these books at the end.

The Catholic Church always has had the Deuterocanonical Books they accept. Though Jerome did note they were in the Septuagint but not the Hebrew Bible. Most early Christians used the Greek Septuagint.
Actually the Apocrypha Luther originally translated from the Gutenberg bible aren’t all definitive Canon in the Church. He also included 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh which were also in older versions of the Vulgate.
Orthodox actually have even more books including the above mentioned, sometimes in different numbering. For example in the Latin Vulgate Ezra and Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras and what is commonly known as 1 and 2 Esdras are actually 3 and 4 Esdras in the appendix to the Latin Vulgate along with the Prayer of Mannaseh.
Orthodox also recognize 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151, and on occasion 4 Maccabees which I believe is only present in an appendix to the Greek Bible. If you are interested in that I suggest the NRSV w apocrypha/deuteroconical books which is meant as a Bible for Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox. The New Common English Bible does as well.
 
This subject was integral in my conversion. As a Protestant I looked into why the CI Scofield KJV Bible was so revered among fundamental Protestants. Through that I came to learn about the deuterocanonical books. Then I learned that as late as the late 1800’s they were still in the KJV bible. That lead me to Luther, and ultimately how the final canon came to be. History is on our side as Catholics. At the end of the day one sides bible has the correct books and one doesn’t. When your doctrine is based on scripture alone but your bible has changed throughout history, it raises an eyebrow. I believe I have a book with a list at home of deuterocanonical books quoted in the NT. I’ll check it out when I get home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top