K
kramerbaby
Guest
i know of Tobit but what are the other ones?
- Status
S
Socrates
Guest
In addition to Tobit…
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
Baruch
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus)
…off the top of my head, but I think that’s the correct list.
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
Baruch
Judith
Wisdom
Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus)
…off the top of my head, but I think that’s the correct list.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Also:
part of the book of Esther,
part of Chapter 3, and all of Chapters 13 and 14 of the book of Daniel
Blessings,
Gerry
S
Socrates
Guest
Good catch, Gerry! I forgot about those.
J
jimmy
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
I did not realize these were missing. What is there reasoning for not including these?
S
Socrates
Guest
I would imagine the reasoning is little more than these sections being included in the septuagint OT but not in the Hebrew scriptures canonized by the Jews in the first century.
I could be wrong but I don’t think that there is a specific reason for rejecting each particular book or section. I think it’s just a matter of rejecting the septuagint in favor of the Jewish canon.
M
Melchior
Guest
All the dueterocanonicals. Since they are considered “deutero” by the Catholic church as well I think the issue is a bit over-inflated. With the exception of a vague reference to praying for the dead the deuteros do not change alter overall biblical doctrine whether they are in or out. I suspect if Obadiah and a few other minor prophets dissapeared it would not be noticed by many.
That being said I do think they should be included. But I have no problem having them seperated since they are considered deutero-canonical thus naturally setting them apart anyway. Respectfully, many catholic apologists seem to forget the deutero part.
Mel
That being said I do think they should be included. But I have no problem having them seperated since they are considered deutero-canonical thus naturally setting them apart anyway. Respectfully, many catholic apologists seem to forget the deutero part.
Mel
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
In the cases of the Esther and Daniel exclusions, the reasons have to do with these texts being found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew manuscripts. Apparently, after the Roman Dispersion of the Jewish people, the Rabbis didn’t include them either, and Reformers liked to make a point of that.
The Daniel exclusions appear in the Protestant Apocrypha as the Books of “Susanna” and “Bel and the Dragon”.
I’ve always found the reasoning for excluding the deuterocanonicals by the Reformers to be somewhat obtuse. Recall that if Luther could have pulled it off, he’d have reduced the New Testament, too, by excluding James.
Blessings,
Gerry
- Status