What's the deal with the deuterocanonical books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gez722
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gez722

Guest
It was my understanding that Martin Luther excluded the deuterocanonical books from his Old Testament because they didn’t agree with his beliefs. I recently learned that the Jewish Tanakh also doesn’t include them.

Can somebody give me more information about this subject. Why do Catholic bibles include these books even though the Jews excluded them? Also, did Luther really remove them or was he just using the Jewish version of the canon?

God Bless,
Gary
 
James White and Gary Michuta squared off some time ago on the subject of the deuterocanonicals. But the bottom line is that the Catholic Church spent hundreds of years studying all the available “books” before it presented the canon to the world. No problem till the 1500’s during which time the Church needed to clearly state which were in and which were out.

Many of the Protestant groups chose to go with the list picked by the Council of Jerusalem who were meeting (around 90AD) as much in response to addressing “those upstart Christians” as anything else.

While one argument is that Jesus and the Apostles did not quote from all the Catholic-canonized OT books (true), so what.
    • – the NT does not record quotes from all the **individual **OT canon, but it does quote from the collective canon.
 
There’s a book of the OT called ‘Jasher’ mentioned twice in the NT.
 
“Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?”–Joshua, x. 13.
“Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher.”–II Samuel, i. 18
 
The Jews excluded them officially AFTER Christ. Lots of people were following Christ- there were prophecies in these books, and they were chosen not to be kept in.
 
It is my understanding that the Jews excluded these books from their canon because they did not have original Hebrew texts. The Deuterocanonicals were, however, part of the Septuagint, which was written in Greek by Jewish scholars before the time of Christ.

Luther and the reformers rejected the Deuterocanonicals because these books support ideas that they reject, such as praying for the dead. Luther at one point also rejected the epistle of St. James, calling it an “epistle of straw”. Other reformers later disagreed, maintaining St. James in their canon, despite the views of Luther.
 
The deuterocanonical books are still regarded as good doctrine by protestants. They just aren’t accepted as being divinely inspired. My mom’s Lutheran Bible has a section between the OT and the NT that speaks about the deuterocanonical books.
 
Hi all!

Our Sages (at Yavneh/Jamnia, after the destruction of the 2nd Temple in CE 70 :crying: & before the Bar Kochba Revolt in CE 132-135) excluded the so-called Apocryphal books from the Tanakh (what we call what you call the “Old Testament”) for several reasons. Ferinstance, I Maccabees, while considered to be very historically accurate & written by a believing Jew, was not considered to be Divinely inspired. The Prayer of Manasseh, while quite moving & a spiritual gem, was considered to be inauthentic (i.e., not by King Manasseh) as well as uninspired. Other books were considered to contain/be full of/ nonsense (i.e. ideas that didn’t jibe with the Torah), as well as to be inauthentic and/or uninspired.

Our Sages did not exclude the so-called Apocryphal books from the Tanakh because of alleged (no offense!) references to Jesus contained therein. There are plenty of alleged (no offense!) references to Jesus in books such as Isaiah, Daniel, etc. that we did let in. (Where are references to Jesus in, say, I Maccabees or the Prayer of Manasseh?)

Be well!

ssv 👋
 
Since the Pharisaic Jews predominated at the council of Jamnia (the Sadducees were largely wiped out when the Temple was destroyed), there wishes held sway. The Greek speaking Jews were largely Christian, and not represented.
 
Even before Jamnia the (non-greek-speaking) Jews did not give our deuterocanonical books equality with the Tanakh. I have also heard that they would not quote these books in the synagogue. It should not be ignored; however, that the Hellenic (Greek) Jews received the Septuagint and with it the deutero books. Realistically modern Jews could easily show that this is a moot point. The Hellenic Jews had somewhat abandoned a strict adherence to the finer points of Hebrew law (I seem to remember learning that), so this could be shown as just another point of error for them.

Ultimately we as Catholics rely on the Magisterium to make known to us which books are inspired. Even if the Jews did not consider the deutero to be on par with the rest of the OT, that does not prove that its wrong for us to see it as inspired. After all, the thought of defining a canon was very new at the time, and the concept of closing the canon was entirely foreign. There were Jews who accepted these books as inspired just as there were Church Fathers who denied them. The deciding factor must be the Church formed by Christ to guide us from error.
 
This link (from this very site) gives some great quotes on the Early Church Fathers view of the Deuteros:

catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

you also would definitely want to read:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Finally, logically speaking, if we reject the Deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha) because the Jews did, we must also reject the entirety of the New Testament (as well as the rather vital Christian notion that Jesus was the Messiah). We must look to the historical evidence and, if we are Catholic) accept the word of the Magisterium, not the word of another religious body, though this should reflect no disrespect on the latter.
 
Ecce Homo:
It is my understanding that the Jews excluded these books from their canon because they did not have original Hebrew texts. The Deuterocanonicals were, however, part of the Septuagint, which was written in Greek by Jewish scholars before the time of Christ.

Luther and the reformers rejected the Deuterocanonicals because these books support ideas that they reject, such as praying for the dead. Luther at one point also rejected the epistle of St. James, calling it an “epistle of straw”. Other reformers later disagreed, maintaining St. James in their canon, despite the views of Luther.
Click to expand...
Indeed, for a period of about 100 years, many German Lutheran Bibles listed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as “apocrypha”.
 
Chris LaRock:
The deuterocanonical books are still regarded as good doctrine by protestants. They just aren’t accepted as being divinely inspired. My mom’s Lutheran Bible has a section between the OT and the NT that speaks about the deuterocanonical books.
Click to expand...
The Anglicans have taken a via media position on these books – useful reading for moral instruction, but not to be used for establishing doctrine. Various Lutheran bodies have gone back and forth. Virtually all of the rest of Protestantism rejects them utterly.
 
David Zampino:
The Anglicans have taken a via media position on these books – useful reading for moral instruction, but not to be used for establishing doctrine. Various Lutheran bodies have gone back and forth. Virtually all of the rest of Protestantism rejects them utterly.
Click to expand...
I personally enjoyed the deuterocanonical books. Wisdom and Sirach had some great stuff. I’ve been writing scriptures on to index cards to help me learn the bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top