The 7 books

[believers]

As I expected, you cannot produce a single early Church council that recognizes the Protestant canon. You cannot produce a single bit of historical evidence that the early, “uncorrupted” Church ever recognized the Protestant canon.

That’s right, when in doubt tell the Catholic he doesn’t believe the Scriptures. That’s always a winning argument.

Was the Septaugint not written by Jews, for Jews? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a pagan endeavor.

Excuse me then while I tell the Protestant world to rip Malachi out of their bibles. I mean, this is too bizarre. You invalidate your own canon in trying to invalidate ours. Oh well, Malachi is such a little book…

As expected, you have absolutely no support of your own.

The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as inspired.

Also, the Jewish canon was in a different order than the Christian Old Testament. All the books are there just arranged differently. Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order.

This is worth repeating… The Bible is the authority. Not your church.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Catholic Church existed before the bible–wrote the bible and determined what was in the bible guided into all truth by the magisterium which was taught by the Holy Spirit.

The Jews who rejected Jesus ion 90 AD were not taught by the Holy Spirit and weren’t guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit to even have any voice in the matter.

The very scrolls that Jesus read from in the temple included the 7 books. Jesus said nothing to disallow them. The disciples used those very same scrolls when the church was born at Pentecost and they had the authority to accept them just like they had the authority to change the day of the Sabbath!

When the whole canon of scripture was approved there weren’t large groups of bishops clammoring that they shouldn’t be there.

The Holy Spirit did not move anyone to speak up at those councils and say that they shouldn’t be there.

The Catholic Church kept all of those books until the 1500s and as promised “The gates of Hell” did not prevail against the Catholic Church as Jesus promised the disciples.

During all those centuries it was God’s will that His church and the souls in it should regard it as divine scripture.

If the witness of God’s Catholic Church for all those centuries isn’t good enough for people just remember what Jesus said should be done to people who would not listen to the church–“They should be treated like publicans and sinners”.

Who can argue with Jesus and the Holy Spirit that guided the Catholic Church into all truth?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Which Christians? As you probably know, there were varying opinions on the canon…

Please provide us with a list of the books that the septuagint included. Fr. Mitch Pacwa even admits that the septuagint included extra books that you guys don’t deem either inspired or canonical. He did this during a debate with James White.

No, the issue was not settled. You guys didn’t settle the issue for the RCC until Trent.

First, there is no, absolutely no way you can logically argue that Paul had in mind the deuteros when he penned his epistle.

All scripture is referring to all scripture…thats it. Again, unless you want to accept the full index of books in the septuagint as canonical your argument is fallacious.

The reformers moved the books you guys call the deuteros. The deuterocanonical books are not the septuagint and the septuagint is not the deuterocanonical books. They are not one and the same thing.

Canon of Scripture

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Deuterocanonical is a term first coined in 1566 by the converted Jew and Catholic theologian Sixtus of Siena to describe scriptural texts of the Old Testament whose canonicity was definitively confirmed by the Council of Trent, but which had been omitted from some early canons, especially in the East. Their acceptance among early Christians was not universal, but regional councils in the West published official canons that included these books as early as the fourth and fifth centuries.[1]

The deuterocanonical scriptural texts are:

* Tobit
* Judith
* Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24, but see also Esther in the NAB)
* Wisdom
* Ben Sira, also called Sirach or Ecclesiasticus
* Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint[2])
* Additions to Daniel:
      o Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
      o Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
      o The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees

Influence of the Septuagint

The large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint which includes the deuterocanonical books as well as apocrypha, both of which are called collectively anagignoskomena. Several appear to have been written originally in Hebrew, but the original text has long been lost. Archaeological finds in the last century, however, have provided a text of almost ⅔ of the book of Sirach, and fragments of other books have been found as well. The Septuagint was widely accepted and used by Jews in the first century, even in the region of Roman Iudaea Province, and therefore naturally became the text most widely used by early Christians.

In the New Testament, Hebrews 11:35 refers to an event that was only explicitly recorded in one of the deuterocanonical books (2 Maccabees 7). However, Josephus (a Jewish historian) completely rejected the deuterocanonical books[3], while Athanasius believed that they were useful for reading, but that, except for Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, they were not in the canon.[4]

 

[Mannyfit75]

As expected, you have absolutely no support of your own.

The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as inspired.

Also, the Jewish canon was in a different order than the Christian Old Testament. All the books are there just arranged differently. Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order.

This is worth repeating… The Bible is the authority. Not your church.

These Jews also rejected Jesus Christ, that is why they didn’t accept the Apocrypha Books. Early Christians used it in the first Century.

Find me a list of books in the Bible that have only 66 OT text from Early Christian document. Not Jews who do not believe in Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

I tell you that the Early Christians did used the Septuagint and the Deutro books.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Does anyone have information on why the 7 books are not included in KJV?

Tobias
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
1 Machabees
2 Machabees

Thanks!

Water:

They were included in the original editions of the KJV, and were and are required to be read at Morning and Evening Prayer for edification and instruction in righteousness in the Church of England per the infamous “29 Articles of Religion”:

The Bible, King James Version
Old and New Testaments, with the Apocrypha
The Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia
etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

GOD’S WORD® ONLINE
godsword.org/cgi-bin/gwstore.cgi?cart_id=8692016_21069&page=books.htm

Scanned Original 1611 KJV
dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible

And here are some comments by an Anglican Minister of the 19th Century:
ccel.org/info/apoc.html

One thing you’ll notice in the scanned version is that the books are pretty much in the propper place and not in a section labelled “Apocrypha”.

They were dropped in later editions and are ignored by most Protestants.

A member of the parish at St. Mary’s has and carries a reproduction 1611 KJV and knows how to deal with the spelling irregularities and how the words are to be pronounced and read.

And the standard ending reply for a reading from one of Deuterocanonical Books is: “Here endeth the Lesson” - “Thanks be to God” - Which is the same as for any other lesson.

FYI, The original people who dropped the Deuterocanon were the Jewish Scribes and Rabbies who assembled at Jamnia between 85-90 A.D. with the idea of deleteing those books which had encouraged the disastrous rebellion against Rome. The Protestants who reject the Deuterocanon are only accepting their decision.

You have to ask about the intellectual honesty of Leaders, and their followers, who would run to accept the decisions of a Council run by the very people God had taken His Holy Spirit from, along with the keys to the Kingdom and Temple of God (Those are the keys that now belong to the Pope), over those of the Church that Christ himself had founded and had guaranteed would be free from error if not sin and corruption.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[lak611]

Water:

They were included in the original editions of the KJV, and were and are required to be read at Morning and Evening Prayer for edification and instruction in righteousness in the Church of England per the infamous “29 Articles of Religion”:

The Bible, King James Version
Old and New Testaments, with the Apocrypha
The Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia
etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

GOD’S WORD® ONLINE
godsword.org/cgi-bin/gwstore.cgi?cart_id=8692016_21069&page=books.htm

Scanned Original 1611 KJV
dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible

And here are some comments by an Anglican Minister of the 19th Century:
ccel.org/info/apoc.html

One thing you’ll notice in the scanned version is that the books are pretty much in the propper place and not in a section labelled “Apocrypha”.

They were dropped in later editions and are ignored by most Protestants.

A member of the parish at St. Mary’s has and carries a reproduction 1611 KJV and knows how to deal with the spelling irregularities and how the words are to be pronounced and read.

And the standard ending reply for a reading from one of Deuterocanonical Books is: “Here endeth the Lesson” - “Thanks be to God” - Which is the same as for any other lesson.

FYI, The original people who dropped the Deuterocanon were the Jewish Scribes and Rabbies who assembled at Jamnia between 85-90 A.D. with the idea of deleteing those books which had encouraged the disastrous rebellion against Rome. The Protestants who reject the Deuterocanon are only accepting their decision.

You have to ask about the intellectual honesty of Leaders, and their followers, who would run to accept the decisions of a Council run by the very people God had taken His Holy Spirit from, along with the keys to the Kingdom and Temple of God (Those are the keys that now belong to the Pope), over those of the Church that Christ himself had founded and had guaranteed would be free from error if not sin and corruption.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

I have a reprint of the original 1611 KJV with the Deuterocanonicals in the “Apocrypha” section. It has the different spellings of the English language like you mentioned.

Do you have a link for the Morning and Evening Prayer? I would like to see that if it’s available online. I don’t know if I would buy a book, but I’d like to see it, since I never have seen one and I’m curious how much the Deuterocanonicals are in it.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

As expected, you have absolutely no support of your own.

The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as inspired.

Also, the Jewish canon was in a different order than the Christian Old Testament. All the books are there just arranged differently. Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order.

This is worth repeating… The Bible is the authority. Not your church.

Believers:

The Jews rejected the Deuterocanon at the Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D. primarily to reject those books the Jewish leadership believed had incited the disastrous revolt against Rome. At the same time, the Council decided on 4 “Curses” which were to be read by all visitors or new members to every synagogue. 3 of these “Curses” were curses the new member or guest had to solemnly pray or swear against Jesus of Nazareth or against his followers, who were addressed as “Nazarenes”. And, One had to say that Jesus of Nazareth was never raised from the dead, and that those who say who was, should be accursed.

Are you sure that Council was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Doesn’t Scripture say that NO man who is inspired by the Holy Spirit can say, “Jesus be accursed?”

Did you know that the Church didn’t finalize the Canon of the New Testament until after 400 A.D.? What do you think they did for almost 400 years (33 A.D. to 414 A.D.)?

First, From 30 A.D. until copies of the Books of the New Testament began to circulate in earnest (130 A.D. for every city to get a copy of every book), they read from the Septuagent and repeated what the Apostles, and their immediate successors, told them - ORAL TRADITION, or “The Gospel they had received”. And, even as the Churches received copies of Books, they compared them with their ORAL TRADITION to see if they agreed with or contradicted “the Gospel they had received” so they could accept or reject them.

And, that system basically worked until the Church had to deal with the big Chrystological heresies in the 4th and 5th Centuries. As the Church fought the heresies, the regional lists were taken together, collated by Athansius and finalized by Pope St. Innocent I and the Councils he influenced.

You see, if our Lord had meant to leave a book as the authority, he would have said so. But that’s not what he said. Instead, what he said was:

Matt 16:17-19 RSV
*And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *
hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4630803

And, the Greek scholars have told me the Greek is pretty clear here, and that Jesus is founding His Church on Peter, not on Peter’s “Confession of Faith”, and that is why Jesus is giving Peter the Keys which formerly belonged to the Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom of Judah.

Jesus didn’t leave a book which could be interpretted any number of ways buy any number of people. He begot and created a Church which could lead all those he bought and paid for at such a dear price into eternal union with Him and the Father.

A book can’t, “Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matt 28:19-20a RSV)
hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4695432

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I have a reprint of the original 1611 KJV with the Deuterocanonicals in the “Apocrypha” section. It has the different spellings of the English language like you mentioned.

Do you have a link for the Morning and Evening Prayer? I would like to see that if it’s available online. I don’t know if I would buy a book, but I’d like to see it, since I never have seen one and I’m curious how much the Deuterocanonicals are in it.

Lak611:

The readings aren’t in the book - There’s a list of readings, and then you go and find the readings in your Bible or in this Big “Honking” Altar edition that’s a KJV with the Trent Canon and 14 or 16 point type.

Very few people use the 1928 or 1662 Prayer Books now . Those who are are in the Anglican Continuum, which means they’ve resisted ordaining Women priests and most of the other garbage that the Anglican communion worldwide has been doing. Problem is that many of their congregations are also dying.

The vrsion of the Anglican communion in the US is known now as The Episcopal Church (they’ve had 3 name changes in the past 30 years), and I’d rather not have you go there.

You’re in luck. I would concentrate on the 1662 and the 1928 as they are the ones used by almost all of the Anglicans who split with the Anglican Communion (+Canterbury). The ones in America pretty much use the 1928, although many suppliment the Divine Liturgy or Mass with Propers from either the Anglican or American Missal (both translations of parts of the TLM)

Anglicans Online:
anglicansonline.org/resources/bcp.html

I have to admit that I’ve deliberately this cite and the 1979 BCP because of all of the emotions coming from the breakup in 1977.

You Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Publisher]

I have to side with the Orthodox and Catholics on this issue. History…plain and simple…shows that the “disputed” books were used as scripture for most of the life of Christianity…only since the Reformation has this changed…but it is swinging back…The Anglican communion does use the “disptuted” books.

There is a difference between the Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, Syraic and Protestant canons…but the Protestant canon is new upon the scene…and while yes it can be argued that the Protestant canon follows the “Jewish” canon established in Jamina around 90AD, it was not a “Universal” canon as there are still Jewish groups around the world that us the extended canon.

True, the NT has no direct quotes from the DC books, but it does have many allusions. True, none of the writers of the Gospels have Jesus quoting it…but they don’t have Jesus quoting Esther, the Canticles or Eccesiatstes either.

The “canon” was not determined by “revelation”…but by years and years of tradition within the various bodies of Christianity…to say that the 66 books as determined by Protestants…who had an agenda, to say the least, to distinguish themselves from Catholicism is “correct” and the majority of Christians in the world are “wrong”…doesn’t hold water…except in the Protestant bucket…but then their “bucket” is late on the scene.

We talk of Christian Unity quite a bit…IMO, Christianity has never been united as a whole…but that’s just my opinion. I don’t have anything to proove one way or another…I enjoy reading the scriptures…I find much instruction and profit in all the books that have been considered “inspired” by the church over the centuries…ALL the books, there is much beauty in Sirach…I wonder if those Protestants who want to have them discarded…ever read them…or are they just “parroting” what they’ve been taught?

 

[lak611]

Lak611:

The readings aren’t in the book - There’s a list of readings, and then you go and find the readings in your Bible or in this Big “Honking” Altar edition that’s a KJV with the Trent Canon and 14 or 16 point type.

Very few people use the 1928 or 1662 Prayer Books now . Those who are are in the Anglican Continuum, which means they’ve resisted ordaining Women priests and most of the other garbage that the Anglican communion worldwide has been doing. Problem is that many of their congregations are also dying.

The vrsion of the Anglican communion in the US is known now as The Episcopal Church (they’ve had 3 name changes in the past 30 years), and I’d rather not have you go there.

You’re in luck. I would concentrate on the 1662 and the 1928 as they are the ones used by almost all of the Anglicans who split with the Anglican Communion (+Canterbury). The ones in America pretty much use the 1928, although many suppliment the Divine Liturgy or Mass with Propers from either the Anglican or American Missal (both translations of parts of the TLM)

Anglicans Online:
anglicansonline.org/resources/bcp.html

I have to admit that I’ve deliberately this cite and the 1979 BCP because of all of the emotions coming from the breakup in 1977.

You Brother in Christ, Michael

Thanks for the link. I found the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, so I can look through it online. I could probably pair that up with the 1611 KJV to find where the Deuterocanonicals are used.

 

[SFH]

They were included in the 1611 KJV. These books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825.
The seven books you reference were written between 400BC and 1BC, primarily in Greek (although some exist in Hebrew fragments) whereas the rest of the OT was written before 400 BC in Hebrew.

Martin Luther didn’t like them because 2 Macc 12:39-46 talks about prayer and offerings for the dead that their sins might be forgiven, which he personally opposed. (The practice was being abused during Luther’s time by corrupt church officials who used it to raise money.) Luther couldn’t justify rejecting just 2nd Maccabees, but he did find support from other anti-Catholic reformers for defining the entire group as an unjustified addition to Old Testament scripture.

See these articles:
How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals (best explanation)
Old Testament Canon (Early Church Fathers’ position on the canon)

I have a question of my own for everyone: Why are only these 7 books part of the Deuterocanonicals, and not other significant works written in that period?

Nan

And they are still included in many KJV bibles printed in England. My pulpit edition from Cambridge Press has them between the Old and New Testaments. The KJV “Apocrypha” also includes 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, which incidentally, the Douay Rheims used to include (though not as canonical).

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Well, there wouldn’t be a **Chanukah **without 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees and a lot less presents too .

 

[prodigal-sun]

False. The Word of God isn’t called the Word of God for nothing. Man may have moved the pen but that’s as far as it goes.

Let me repeat… The Jews rejected the Apocrypha.

They also rejected the New Testament and Jesus Christ, Even though The O.T. points to him.

You really do need to learn more about the HIstory of the OT, your blinders need to come down!

 

[RNRobert]

I bought a NAB a couple years before I became Catholic (I was investigating the Orthodox Church at the time) mainly for the Deuterocanonical books. I remember reading the book of Wisdom and came across this passage:

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him. (Wisdom 2:12-20, NAB).

This book was written about a century or two before the birth of Christ, and when I read this I thought, “This HAS to be prophecy concerning the death of Our Lord.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Deuterocanonical Books Cited in the New Testament

 

[believers]

They also rejected the New Testament and Jesus Christ, Even though The O.T. points to him.

You really do need to learn more about the HIstory of the OT, your blinders need to come down!

The Jews refuse the NT because they rejected Jesus. The Christians have the NT along with the Oracles that were committed to the Jews.

 

[believers]

Deuterocanonical Books Cited in the New Testament

What does this prove?

Anyone can take Bible verses and put them into Man’s words, but you can’t take Man’s words and put them in the Bible.

You need to reword your statement…

New Testament Verses cited in the Deutero

 

[Mannyfit75]

What does this prove?

Anyone can take Bible verses and put them into Man’s words, but you can’t take Man’s words and put them in the Bible.

It proves that they were used. You still have not come up with a list of books in the Bible that is similiar to the Protestant OT. I’m still waiting.

You just like to ignore the historical facts.

This just brings up that Protestants are scared of Christian history. You are afraid of the Truth.

 

[believers]

It proves that they were used. You still have not come up with a list of books in the Bible that is similiar to the Protestant OT. I’m still waiting.

You just like to ignore the historical facts.

This just brings up that Protestants are scared of Christian history. You are afraid of the Truth.

It only proves that someone used Bible verses.

Man’s take on history IS NOT THE TRUTH. There is only one truth and that’s the Word of God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It only proves that someone used Bible verses.

Man’s take on history IS NOT THE TRUTH. There is only one truth and that’s the Word of God.

Then answer this question? How do you know your Bible is inspired? Who gave you a list? How do we know Jesus Christ exist?

History is about Truth. The Bible itself is a historical document written by men inspired by God that give us a testimony about God’s revelation to the human race.

I have search the truth, believers. You want to discuss this in a charitable manner, you should reframe from CAPs.

Who came up with the word Trinity? Trinity isn’t found in the Bible. It was the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D that defined Trinity, and that God is a Triune God, Three Persons, and One God.

Most Protestants believe in the Trinity. I am sure you do. How do you know that Trinity is the reveal truth of God?

You cannot seperate Christian History and the Bible. The Bible is a historical document. You might as well call the Bible not the Truth. Since the Bible was written by Men inspired by God.

Even Jesus calls himself the Son of Man.