Deuterocanonical: reasons for inclusion/exclusion

[waxwing]

Hello

Wondering if someone could explain to me(and the rest of us here) the reasons why the Protestant Old Testament excludes deuterocanonical scripture as well as the the reasons they are not included in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)
Are the reasons related or are those extra books of the Bible excluded from each respective canon for completely different reasons. Also what is the rational/reason for the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Bible. Yes I know I could Google it and get various explanations, but for the sake of discussion and learning the basics/fundamentals of such differences it would be great if someone(s) could concisely (if thats possible) and in laymen’s terms explain the reasons behind the inclusion/exclusion of said scriptures.

Thanks.

 

[Robyn_p]

Basically, it comes down to which canon each decided to use. Catholics use the Greek canon (aka the Septuagint), which included all the books originally written in Hebrew and seven more written in Greek, and Protestants use the Hebrew canon, which did not contain those seven books.

The reason the Hebrew canon doesn’t contain the books we have is the Jewish authorities decided only books originally written in Hebrew would be considered Scripture. This wasn’t officially decided until after the time of Christ however.

There’s more to it obviously, and hopefully some of our Protestant friends here can explain better than me why they follow the Hebrew canon over the Greek - as I don’t quite know all the reasons behind the choice - but that’s it in a nutshell.

 

[JonNC]

Basically, it comes down to which canon each decided to use. Catholics use the Greek canon (aka the Septuagint), which included all the books originally written in Hebrew and seven more written in Greek, and Protestants use the Hebrew canon, which did not contain those seven books.

The reason the Hebrew canon doesn’t contain the books we have is the Jewish authorities decided only books originally written in Hebrew would be considered Scripture. This wasn’t officially decided until after the time of Christ however.

There’s more to it obviously, and hopefully some of our Protestant friends here can explain better than me why they follow the Hebrew canon over the Greek - as I don’t quite know all the reasons behind the choice - but that’s it in a nutshell.

Well said.

Jon

 

[JerryZ]

As the previous poster mentioned the divergence seems to sprout out of the willingness on the religious leaders of the Jews in post Christ time right when Christianity was at last free to flourish to purge the Hebrew Bible of any “modern contamination”.

This New Canon of Old Testament books is commonly referred to as “Masoretic Text”.

The Catholic Church used as source for it’s Old Testament Canon the LXX or Septuagint which is at least 270 years prior to Jesus appearance on the World stage.
Many of the books that were removed were quoted by Jesus and His Apostles in the New Testament, hence by removing them one could see an attempt to discredit both Jesus and His followers.

But Alas GOD works in mysterious ways and recently the Dead Sea Scrolls shattered the contention that the Masoretic version was more accurate than the LXX when they came to light showing that indeed the LXX is the more precise text.

The theory that there was a closed Hebrew canon of Second Temple Judaism was further challenged by the textual variants found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael Barber writes, “Up until recently it was assumed that “apocryphal” additions found in the books of the LXX represented later augmentations in the Greek to the Hebrew texts. In connection with this, the Masoretic text (MT) established by the rabbis in the medieval period has been accepted as the faithful witness to the Hebrew Bible of the 1st century. Yet, this presupposition is now being challenged in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”[11]

Evidence that supports these challenges include the fact that “copies of some Biblical books found at Qumran reveal sharp divergences from the MT.” As an example of such evidence, Barber asserts that “scholars were amazed to find that the Hebrew copies of 1 and 2 Samuel found in Cave 4 agree with the LXX against the MT. One of these fragments is dated into the third century BCE and is believed to be the very oldest copy of a biblical text found to date. Clearly the Masoretic version of 1–2 Samuel is significantly inferior here to the LXX exemplar.”[11]

The Dead Sea scrolls refer to the Torah and Nevi’im and suggest that these portions of the Bible had been canonized before 68 CE. A scroll that contains all or parts of 41 biblical psalms, although in a different order than in the current Book of Psalms and which includes eight texts not found in the Book of Psalms, suggests that the Book of Psalms had not yet been canonized. See also Psalms 152–155.

And by the way Protestants for ages contend that they derive their Old Testament from the Masoretic Text instead of the LXX as the Catholic Church does.

…

 

[waxwing]

Basically, it comes down to which canon each decided to use. Catholics use the Greek canon (aka the Septuagint), which included all the books originally written in Hebrew and seven more written in Greek, and Protestants use the Hebrew canon, which did not contain those seven books.

The reason the Hebrew canon doesn’t contain the books we have is the Jewish authorities decided only books originally written in Hebrew would be considered Scripture. This wasn’t officially decided until after the time of Christ however.

There’s more to it obviously, and hopefully some of our Protestant friends here can explain better than me why they follow the Hebrew canon over the Greek - as I don’t quite know all the reasons behind the choice - but that’s it in a nutshell.

Thanks for your concise and understandable reply. Would be interesting to dig a bit deeper as to the reasons why Jewish authorities chose not to include the books written in Greek. Was it a mere language issue, was there content that was questionable, historical/cultural reasons etc ? And similarly to the Protestants, is it about language, content; assume Jewish Authorities chose not to include these books way before Protestants did so was it a combination of following their lead as well as perhaps their rationale?

 

[Moses613]

But Alas GOD works in mysterious ways and recently the Dead Sea Scrolls shattered the contention that the Masoretic version was more accurate than the LXX when they came to light showing that indeed the LXX is the more precise text.

It did no such thing. The DSS belonged to the library of a schismatic Jewish sect and contained many similarities and differences to both the MT and the LXX. The fact that there are similarities between DSS and LXX only proves that those versions diverged at a later time than the divergence from the MT. For example, it would be equally as reasonable to assert that the texts changed according to the tree:

(Well I can’t seem to embed the image here so try this link: picpaste.com/mt-eYqkJmLa.jpg)

 

[Moses613]

I will take the liberty of quoting myself in a post from Nov 2014 (link):

The MT is not a “translation of paleo-Hebrew”. It is a record of the original Hebrew text with possible variants. The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from around 200 BCE, prove this. Here’s a quote from biblicalarchaeology.org: “Indeed, one of the most important contributions of the scrolls is that they have demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text.” The same article I’m quoting does say, however, that there are some important textual variants between MT and DSS, but the main impressive thing about them is their incredible similarity.
If you want to argue the following, I’ll diagree with you, but you may say: “The original Hebrew text on which the Septuagint is based is more accurate than the text of the MT.”

Also, from Wikipedia (emphasis added):
“The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint (LXX) provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text as well as those of the Latin Vulgate, where both of the latter seem to have a more similar textual heritage… These issues notwithstanding, the text of the LXX is generally close to that of the Masoretes and Vulgate. For example…”

 

[pablope]

Hello

Wondering if someone could explain to me(and the rest of us here) the reasons why the Protestant Old Testament excludes deuterocanonical scripture as well as the the reasons they are not included in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)
Are the reasons related or are those extra books of the Bible excluded from each respective canon for completely different reasons. Also what is the rational/reason for the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Bible. Yes I know I could Google it and get various explanations, but for the sake of discussion and learning the basics/fundamentals of such differences it would be great if someone(s) could concisely (if thats possible) and in laymen’s terms explain the reasons behind the inclusion/exclusion of said scriptures.

Thanks.

From what I have learned, it started with Luther’s views on the DC books, were taken to extremes and used as a basis for removing them later. The justification, like the Jews did not have them in their canon, came in later, to justify a fait accompli.
Removal of DC books:

forum.chnetwork.org/index.php/topic,11538.0.html

forum.chnetwork.org/index.php/topic,224.0.html

Since the Catholic Bible was the First Bible written how can they say that the King James Bible is the true bible? When they leave the Seven books out of it?

The deletion of the Deuterocanonical books in the King James Version (which originally included them) was not the work of any denominational authorities. Instead, it came about because the printers contracted to print copies of the Authorized Version were restricted in the amount they could charge for a Bible. The printers noted that Protestants generally, and the majority of Church of England adherents in particular, following the lead of Martin Luther and the Lutherans in Germany, did not seem to consider the Deuterocanonicals (which non-Catholics preferred to call Apocrypha, or “doubtful”) divinely inspired. They then proceeded to cut those pages out of the copies they printed, thereby reducing the amount of material and labor required and increasing their profit. Few complaints were registered, and the custom of leaving the “Apocryphal books” out of the King James Version was de facto established.

More here…handsonapologetics.com/King_James_Bible.htm

And the actual decision of the British Bible society:

British and Foreign Bible Society House,
London, February 10, 1826.

We beg leave to inform you that important reasons have induced the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible society to adopt the subjoined Resolution:—
“That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books, and parts of books, which are usually termed Apocryphal; and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at the expense of the Society; and whether such copies consist of the whole or of any one or more of such books, be invariably issued bound; no other books whatever being bound with them: and further, that all money grants to societies or individuals be made only in conformity with the principle of this regulation.”
While the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society have adopted this Regulation for their own guidance, nothing is further from their intention than to interfere, in the smallest degree, with the religious views and opinions, or with the rites and usages, of foreign churches; —they respect that liberty of conscience in others which they themselves so happily enjoy.
The Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society embrace this opportunity of assuring all their continental brethren of their most unfeigned Christian regard, and of their anxious desire to contribute as liberally as possible to the Foreign Societies consistently with their present Resolution; and they shall deem it their privilege and happiness invariably to maintain that pleasing bond of harmony and union which has so long and so beneficially subsisted between the British and Foreign Bible Society and the kindred Institutions of the Continent.

We remain, respectfully,
Your obedient humble Servants,
(Signed) A. BRANDRAM,
Jos. HUGHES,
C.F.A. STEINKOPFF [Secretaries]