Where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe? (SPLIT)

[Jon_S_1]

By comparing them to the non-apocrypha OT & NT Scriptures (ie; the Hebrew/Aramaic OT & Greek NT Scriptures). When you compare their historical/theological claims to them, the 7 Apocrypha books contain errors & contradict the OT/NT Scriptures. Since the Bible is God-breathed, then God-breathed Scripture is the “canon” (or “rod”) used to measure whether something is an error or contradiction. As far as the “alleged” errors & contradictions in the 66 book canon, most of these are either strawman, or the inability of the critic to comprehend the text - or not read all of it, & are easily reconciliable. With the 7 Apocrypha books, they can’t be. That’s why Protestants accept the 66 book canon, because there cannot be error in God’s Word, because that would be the same as God Himself being in error, which is impossible.

So you believe Catholics hold books with known theological errors?? That’s just not the case. We are able to read the books, and espouse truth from them. You are no different than the atheist picking apart the “errors” in the old and New Testament.

You realize St Jerome who you mentioned I believe at one point, used the deuterocanonicals for countless sermons.

Regarding the deuterocanonicals, the “alleged” errors & contradictions in the deuterocanonical canon, most of these are either strawman, or the inability of the critic to comprehend the text - or not read all of it, & are easily reconciliable.

 

[thetazlord]

Hi thetazlord, all of this seems well and good until you consider cold hard fact that the early church considered many other writings also as inspired and canonical. I do not dispute what you say above, for the most part. Surly you see it was not agreed upon 100%, right?

Even if they did agree 100% on the 27 books you still have to consider the other books/writings that some insisted on. By agreeing on the 27 books does not mean that other books were automatically dismissed from the liturgy.

To say “Catholics, Protestants, & Greek Orthodox all agree on the same 27 books of the NT canon” is true but this statement would be false if said in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and I do not mean it in the sense that there were no Protestants or other divisions back then.

Peace!!!

But we have to understand “why” they agree. It’s not like inerrancy is based on “majority rule” or “vote.” It’s based on a particular work being free from error, which the Holy Spirit helps a believer to see. Unbelievers can’t see error, because they are spiritually blind. So, just because 2nd & 3rd century ECF’s “saw” that the 27 books of the NT contained none is because God Himself helped them “see” that. But that doesn’t mean the men themselves are inerrant & the source of truth, even though they got is right. So, just because a particular book is read in a liturgy doesn’t make it Inspired. Otherwise, it would be part of the canon. The fact it’s not, God helped them see the errors in the ones that weren’t. Unfortunately, the early church didn’t use this same discernment with the 7 Apocrypha books, but instead “assumed” that because they were in the Septuagint, that they “must” be Inspired as well. But that “assumption” is not a good reason to include it, & as a result, led to uninspired books with errors & contradictions in them to be included in the OT canon - something later Protestants realized after examining the Scriptures, & more importantly the words of Jesus Himself in Luke Ch.24.

Peace!
thetazlord

 

[thetazlord]

So you believe Catholics hold books with known theological errors?? That’s just not the case. We are able to read the books, and espouse truth from them. You are no different than the atheist picking apart the “errors” in the old and New Testament.

You realize St Jerome who you mentioned I believe at one point, used the deuterocanonicals for countless sermons.

Regarding the deuterocanonicals, the “alleged” errors & contradictions in the deuterocanonical canon, most of these are either strawman, or the inability of the critic to comprehend the text - or not read all of it, & are easily reconciliable.

The problem is that Catholics don’t realize there are errors in them. And it’s been my experience that when they are shown, although they don’t believe there are any errors in them, they also can’t explain the error or contradiction away. In fact, even my Catholic Bible states that Judith is an “edifying piece of fiction.” How can something be “fiction” & true at the same time. So, the errors presented in the Apocrypha aren’t “strawman” like atheists & non-christians do with the 66 book canon that are easily explained. Rather, they are outright, genuine unanswerable & irreconcilable errors & contradictions.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The problem is that Catholics don’t realize there are errors in them. And it’s been my experience that when they are shown, although they don’t believe there are any errors in them, they also can’t explain the error or contradiction away. In fact, even my Catholic Bible states that Judith is an “edifying piece of fiction.” How can something be “fiction” & true at the same time. So, the errors presented in the Apocrypha aren’t “strawman” like atheists & non-christians do with the 66 book canon that are easily explained. Rather, they are outright, genuine unanswerable & irreconcilable errors & contradictions.

So you are saying there are no truths in Jesus’ fictional parables??

Hmmmm interesting position

 

[Jon_S_1]

The problem is that Catholics don’t realize there are errors in them. And it’s been my experience that when they are shown, although they don’t believe there are any errors in them, they also can’t explain the error or contradiction away. In fact, even my Catholic Bible states that Judith is an “edifying piece of fiction.” How can something be “fiction” & true at the same time. So, the errors presented in the Apocrypha aren’t “strawman” like atheists & non-christians do with the 66 book canon that are easily explained. Rather, they are outright, genuine unanswerable & irreconcilable errors & contradictions.

Perhaps these resources can help you in understanding this issue more fully.

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html

matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

 

[thetazlord]

So you are saying there are no truths in Jesus’ fictional parables??

Hmmmm interesting position

Parables are not the same thing. These are stories (even fictional stories) are long analogies used to describe a greater, spiritual reality. Describing actual EVENTS that are known to fictional & believe them to be true events in an error. It’s not the same thing.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Parables are not the same thing. These are stories (even fictional stories) are long analogies used to describe a greater, spiritual reality. Describing actual EVENTS that are known to fictional & believe them to be true events in an error. It’s not the same thing.

Who says Judith is believed to be true events??? Not Catholics…

Judith is a fictional story with spiritual truth to teach a lesson. No different than a parable.

 

[thetazlord]

Perhaps these resources can help you in understanding this issue more fully.

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html

matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

Thanks, but I’ve read articles like this. However, they don’t really address the actual errors, & when they attempt to, they sort of “work around” the errors without actually address them. Essentially, they are strawman defenses when you realize they don’t actually resolve the errors.

 

[thetazlord]

Who says Judith is believed to be true events??? Not Catholics…

Judith is a fictional story with spiritual truth to teach a lesson. No different than a parable.

Actually, EWTN “does” believe Judith was a real person, as well as the events. Yet my Catholic Bible describes Judith as being “fictional.” And a story believed to be true is different than a parable that is used to describe a spiritual reality. That is why the story of Judith is false not Inspired, while a parable describing something that IS true can be Inspired.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks, but I’ve read articles like this. However, they don’t really address the actual errors, & when they attempt to, they sort of “work around” the errors without actually address them. Essentially, they are strawman defenses when you realize they don’t actually resolve the errors.

How can it resolve YOUR straw man errors? Namely that we believe Judith to be a book of history. We don’t.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Actually, EWTN “does” believe Judith was a real person, as well as the events. Yet my Catholic Bible describes Judith as being “fictional.” And a story believed to be true is different than a parable that is used to describe a spiritual reality. That is why the story of Judith is false not Inspired, while a parable describing something that IS true can be Inspired.

So are you saying that there was really a man who built his house on the sand and had it washed away?

That there was really a man with two sons, one of which left and squandered the inheritance and came back to his fathers mercy?

That there was really a man that found a treasure in a field and then went and sold all he had and purchased that field?

Cant we believe Judith is a real person, and the events are based in real history without it being 100% literal journalistic like accounts?

The only problem here is that it seems you are unfamiliar with different biblical genre’s

 

[Duane1966]

It’s clear that as late as the first century, the OT canon was recognized as Inspired Scripture, since the apostle Paul states “ALL Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) which in context of that particular passage Paul was referring to the OT Scriptures. Of course, we also have to take into consideration that Paul is saying that Scripture is Inspired, or God-breathed. Earlier, in his first epistle to Timothy, Paul quoted Luke 10:7 & referred to it as Scripture, so we know from Paul that Luke’s Gospel is God-breathed Scripture as well. We also know from Peter’s epistle that that ALL of Paul’s epistles are God-breathed, because Peter refers to them as Scripture as well. We also know that Luke wrote Acts which is simply a continuation of Luke’s Gospel that records the history of the apostles & the early Church, so we know that is God-breathed Scripture also. We also know from Luke 1:1-4 that much of his God-breathed Scripture was from other sources. When we examine the synoptic Gospels (Matthew & Mark), much of what is written in Luke is also in Matthew & Mark, which was written prior to Luke’s Gospel. Revelation is self-authoritative Inspiration from Jesus Himself (Revelation 1:1,19). As far as the rest of the NT epistles, they have the exact same godly criteria found in the recognized Inspired Scriptures of both the OT & NT (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, etc) that aren’t found in any other religious or secular text. This is why Catholics, Protestants, & Greek Orthodox all agree on the same 27 books of the NT canon.

As far as the OT canon, unfortunately, because the Greek Septugint was a translation of the OT Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, as well as the 7 Apocrypha (ie: “deuterocanonical” books) plus the “additions” to Daniel & Esther, it is “assumed” that because the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint, that that somehow “proves” that the “DC’s” & “additions” are God-breathed as well. However, when we hear from our Lord Jesus Himself, when he refers to the OT Scriptures in Luke 24:44-45, He refers to them as “the Law…and the Prophets…AND the Psalms.”) Jesus divides the OT Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures into the THREE-fold “division” because the Psalms was the first OT book listed in this THIRD division of the OT called the “Ketuvim” (“the Writings” - which is why Jesus refers to this THIRD division as "all the Scriptures (or “Writings”) earlier in Luke Ch.24) at “The Great Synagogue” under the leadership of Ezra around 400 B.C., which closed the OT canon long before the 7 Apocrypha books & “additions” to Esther & Daniel were ever written. Also, as CA Jimmy Akin points out, the OT Scriptures the Pharisees recognized were the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, not the 7 “D/C”/Apocrpyha writings. This is significant because whenever Jesus corrected the Pharisees, He corrected them using their own Scriptures, by quoting them “As it is written” & “Have you not read?”, but not the 7 “D/C”/Apocrypha. So, when Paul states "ALL Scripture is Inspired (“GOD-breathed”)(2 Timothy 3:16), he’s referring the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, not the 7 Apocrypha nor the “additions” to Daniel & Esther. You also have to consider when Protestants are accused of “removing” these writings from the Catholic OT because they were in the Septuagint, it also has to be noted that the Catholic church did the SAME THING, because there were other books in the Septugint that “also” didn’t make the Catholic OT canon as well. But most Catholics don’t hear about that.

Also, the reason they aren’t Inspired, is because unlike the Hebrew/Aramaic OT Scriptures & the NT Greek Scriptures, the 7 Apocrypha & “additions” to Daniel & Esther contain historical and/or theological errors & contradictions that conflict with previous & later Inspired Scripture. So, the comments you hear about why Luther wanted them removed & why St. Jerome didn’t consider them Inspired isn’t the “actual” reason why they aren’t Inspired. And the strawman arguments like “their pastors don’t believe they are so ‘they’ don’t believe they are” are utter nonsense. If you want to know the “real” reason they aren’t, ask a Protestant, not a Catholic who “thinks” they “know” why Protestants don’t. You’ll more than likely not get an accurate answer - just their unfounded “opinion.”

Hope this helps. God bless!

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book_28.html?m=1

** VII. Longer Version of Daniel

**The Book Appears to have been Accepted by Jesus Christ: Jesus’ reference toDaniel 9:27 in*Matthew 24:15 appears to have been to the (longer) Greek version of Daniel. *There are two reasons to believe this. First, because the wording is different between the Greek and Hebrew versions, and second, because Jesus refers to him as“Daniel the prophet.” Why does that matter? Because the Greek version of the Old Testament numbered Daniel among the Prophets (Nevi’im), while the Hebrew version numbered the Book among the Writings(Ketubim).

These Books Give usHanukkah, WhichJesus Christ Celebrated:

InJohn 10:35, Jesus extols Scripture, telling us that“the Scripture cannot be broken.” He says this whilein the Temple, celebratingHanukkah, which we know from John 10:22-23. *Here’s the problem. *The Jewish feast of Hanukkah is prescribed only in 1 and 2 Maccabees (1 Maccabees 4:36-59;*2 Maccabees 1:18), this leaves only two possibilities. *Either Christ was treating the Books of Maccabees as Scripture, and/or He was fine with extra-Scriptural Tradition. *Protestantism traditionally denies both of these things.

 

[adf417]

But we have to understand “why” they agree. It’s not like inerrancy is based on “majority rule” or “vote.” It’s based on a particular work being free from error, which the Holy Spirit helps a believer to see. Unbelievers can’t see error, because they are spiritually blind. **So, just because 2nd & 3rd century ECF’s “saw” that the 27 books of the NT contained none is because God Himself helped them “see” that. **But that doesn’t mean the men themselves are inerrant & the source of truth, even though they got is right. So, just because a particular book is read in a liturgy doesn’t make it Inspired. Otherwise, it would be part of the canon. The fact it’s not, God helped them see the errors in the ones that weren’t. Unfortunately, the early church didn’t use this same discernment with the 7 Apocrypha books, but instead “assumed” that because they were in the Septuagint, that they “must” be Inspired as well. But that “assumption” is not a good reason to include it, & as a result, led to uninspired books with errors & contradictions in them to be included in the OT canon - something later Protestants realized after examining the Scriptures, & more importantly the words of Jesus Himself in Luke Ch.24.

Peace!
thetazlord

If God helped the 2nd & 3rd century ECF’s to see that the 27 books contained no errors why did they continue well into the 4th and 5th centuries individually reporting other books as inspired and without error other than the 27 books of the NT? This still doesn’t take in to account that all EFC’s were not in agreement with ALL 27 books. For the most part they were but not 100%, which alone refutes your logic.

Peace!!!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

(Edited)

Because I’m interested to understand the protestant position I’d only want to know if you can clarify us where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe.

If you can, also tell us approximate period of time (century or better decade, year, date), and the concrete person or the community who established this canon.

Note that I’m not denying the possibility that protestants had received the assistance of the Holy Spirit to determine the Bible canon. I only want to know when and whom.

A greeting.

If you’re looking for a date, I would second the nomination The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646. As far as I know, this is earliest date these books were declared “out” of the Bible in any official way. As you probably already know, the Deuterocanonicals were part of both Luther’s translation and the original King James translation.

But the Protestant biblical canon is the culmination of a very long process that’s already evident in the introduction to each of the Deuterocanonical books in the Glossa Ordinaria, the standard Western commentary on the Vulgate from the Carolingian period, c. 8th-9th century. This commentary declares the Deuterocanonicals “noncanonical” but of course there they are somehow still right there in the Bible. “Here begins the book of Judith, which is not in the canon…” etc. So the Deuterocanoncial books have had a very odd “in between” status in the West for a long period of time.

When Luther published his translation he followed the same academic convention as the Glossa, (a tradition he would have been very familiar with as a scripture scholar) but unlike the Vulgate, Luther included the Deuterocanonicals in a separate section between the Old Testament and the New Testament, however still considering them (and other texts like the 151st Psalm and the Prayer of Manasseh) as Holy Scripture. Again, a very “in between” status.

In the 1826 the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to not include the books in their printed version of the Bible to save printing costs. The rest is history.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

By comparing them to the non-apocrypha OT & NT Scriptures (ie; the Hebrew/Aramaic OT & Greek NT Scriptures). When you compare their historical/theological claims to them, the 7 Apocrypha books contain errors & contradict the OT/NT Scriptures. Since the Bible is God-breathed, then God-breathed Scripture is the “canon” (or “rod”) used to measure whether something is an error or contradiction. As far as the “alleged” errors & contradictions in the 66 book canon, most of these are either strawman, or the inability of the critic to comprehend the text - or not read all of it, & are easily reconciliable. With the 7 Apocrypha books, they can’t be. That’s why Protestants accept the 66 book canon, because there cannot be error in God’s Word, because that would be the same as God Himself being in error, which is impossible.

AFAIK, the development of the Protestant canon has nothing to do with allegations of errors or contradictions in the texts in question.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Perhaps these resources can help you in understanding this issue more fully.

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html

matt1618.freeyellow.com/cloud.html

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

After all these years I finally understand where Catholic apologists get their various canards about the canon, including the bit about the page numbers and Christians being attacked at the Council of Jamnia. It’s the mother lode!!!

 

[Jon_S_1]

If you’re looking for a date, I would second the nomination The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646. As far as I know, this is earliest date these books were declared “out” of the Bible in any official way. As you probably already know, the Deuterocanonicals were part of both Luther’s translation and the original King James translation.

I find this problematic. Why does the Westminster Confession have authority to remove books?

If they removed them due to perceived theology issues, then what stops someone from removing Leviticus or 1 Corinthians, or James for the same reason ? Indeed there are churches that reject all of Paul’s writings. Under the protestant model, they have every authority to do so.

I can see a day maybe in a hundred years as society gets more and more secular and liberal, that a number of books might be “put in the appendix” and later removed. They’ll say “that book speaks of homosexuality as wrong, so it must not be really inspired”. Or “that book speaks of only men being ordained, it must not be inspired”

On and on…such a system relegates God’s word to a reflection of popular opinion.

But the Protestant biblical canon is the culmination of a very long process that’s already evident in the introduction to each of the Deuterocanonical books in the Glossa Ordinaria, the standard Western commentary on the Vulgate from the Carolingian period, c. 8th-9th century. This commentary declares the Deuterocanonicals “noncanonical” but of course there they are somehow still right there in the Bible. “Here begins the book of Judith, which is not in the canon…” etc. So the Deuterocanoncial books have had a very odd “in between” status in the West for a long period of time.

When Luther published his translation he followed the same academic convention as the Glossa, (a tradition he would have been very familiar with as a scripture scholar) but unlike the Vulgate, Luther included the Deuterocanonicals in a separate section between the Old Testament and the New Testament, however still considering them (and other texts like the 151st Psalm and the Prayer of Manasseh) as Holy Scripture. Again, a very “in between” status.

In the 1826 the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to not include the books in their printed version of the Bible to save printing costs. The rest is history.

you are ok with the printing error making your Bible smaller?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I find this problematic. Why does the Westminster Confession have authority to remove books?

If they removed them due to perceived theology issues, then what stops someone from removing Leviticus or 1 Corinthians, or James for the same reason ? Indeed there are churches that reject all of Paul’s writings. Under the protestant model, they have every authority to do so.

I can see a day maybe in a hundred years as society gets more and more secular and liberal, that a number of books might be “put in the appendix” and later removed. They’ll say “that book speaks of homosexuality as wrong, so it must not be really inspired”. Or “that book speaks of only men being ordained, it must not be inspired”

On and on…such a system relegates God’s word to a reflection of popular opinion.

you are ok with the printing error making your Bible smaller?

I have access to all of the these texts in their various versions so it’s not like anyone is keeping them from me. As for Reformed theology, it really doesn’t affect me any more than someone saying they believe in the planet Kolob.

Are you ok with posting that Jimmy Akin link? Historically, most of it is as fantastic as the Book of Mormon.

 

[PJM]

=thetazlord;12716641]It’s clear that as late as the first century, the OT canon was recognized as Inspired Scripture, since the apostle Paul states “ALL Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) which in context of that particular passage Paul was referring to the OT Scriptures. Of course, we also have to take into consideration that Paul is saying that Scripture is Inspired, or God-breathed. Earlier, in his first epistle to Timothy, Paul quoted Luke 10:7 & referred to it as Scripture, so we know from Paul that Luke’s Gospel is God-breathed Scripture as well. We also know from Peter’s epistle that that ALL of Paul’s epistles are God-breathed, because Peter refers to them as Scripture as well. We also know that Luke wrote Acts which is simply a continuation of Luke’s Gospel that records the history of the apostles & the early Church, so we know that is God-breathed Scripture also. We also know from Luke 1:1-4 that much of his God-breathed Scripture was from other sources. When we examine the synoptic Gospels (Matthew & Mark), much of what is written in Luke is also in Matthew & Mark, which was written prior to Luke’s Gospel. Revelation is self-authoritative Inspiration from Jesus Himself (Revelation 1:1,19). As far as the rest of the NT epistles, they have the exact same godly criteria found in the recognized Inspired Scriptures of both the OT & NT (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, etc) that aren’t found in any other religious or secular text. This is why Catholics, Protestants, & Greek Orthodox all agree on the same 27 books of the NT canon.

As far as the OT canon, unfortunately, because the Greek Septugint was a translation of the OT Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, as well as the 7 Apocrypha (ie: “deuterocanonical” books) plus the “additions” to Daniel & Esther, it is “assumed” that because the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint, that that somehow “proves” that the “DC’s” & “additions” are God-breathed as well. However, when we hear from our Lord Jesus Himself, when he refers to the OT Scriptures in Luke 24:44-45, He refers to them as “the Law…and the Prophets…AND the Psalms.”) Jesus divides the OT Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures into the THREE-fold “division” because the Psalms was the first OT book listed in this THIRD division of the OT called the “Ketuvim” (“the Writings” - which is why Jesus refers to this THIRD division as "all the Scriptures (or “Writings”) earlier in Luke Ch.24) at “The Great Synagogue” under the leadership of Ezra around 400 B.C., which closed the OT canon long before the 7 Apocrypha books & “additions” to Esther & Daniel were ever written. Also, as CA Jimmy Akin points out, the OT Scriptures the Pharisees recognized were the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, not the 7 “D/C”/Apocrpyha writings. This is significant because whenever Jesus corrected the Pharisees, He corrected them using their own Scriptures, by quoting them “As it is written” & “Have you not read?”, but not the 7 “D/C”/Apocrypha. So, when Paul states "ALL Scripture is Inspired (“GOD-breathed”)(2 Timothy 3:16), he’s referring the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures, not the 7 Apocrypha nor the “additions” to Daniel & Esther. You also have to consider when Protestants are accused of “removing” these writings from the Catholic OT because they were in the Septuagint, it also has to be noted that the Catholic church did the SAME THING, because there were other books in the Septugint that “also” didn’t make the Catholic OT canon as well. But most Catholics don’t hear about that.

Also, the reason they aren’t Inspired, is because unlike the Hebrew/Aramaic OT Scriptures & the NT Greek Scriptures, the 7 Apocrypha & “additions” to Daniel & Esther contain historical and/or theological errors & contradictions that conflict with previous & later Inspired Scripture. So, the comments you hear about why Luther wanted them removed & why St. Jerome didn’t consider them Inspired isn’t the “actual” reason why they aren’t Inspired. And the strawman arguments like “their pastors don’t believe they are so ‘they’ don’t believe they are” are utter nonsense. If you want to know the “real” reason they aren’t, ask a Protestant, not a Catholic who “thinks” they “know” why Protestants don’t. You’ll more than likely not get an accurate answer - just their unfounded “opinion.”

Hope this helps. God bless!

Thank you for the thoughtful post; how then to you explain:

Prov.30

[5] Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Matt.4

[4] But he answered, “It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

God Bless you my friend,

Patrick

 

[Dave_Noonan]

If they removed them due to perceived theology issues, then what stops someone from removing Leviticus or 1 Corinthians, or James for the same reason?

I don’t think it’s fair to say they were removed for theological reasons. The deuterocanonicals were eventually removed basically because they had been considered non-canonical and sort of marginal as Scripture in the West for at least 800 years. And after awhile, particularly once people could read the Bible on their own, Christians didn’t see them as very central to their faith. Even today, a Catholic isn’t ever going to hear readings from Judith at Mass–the deuterocanonicals just aren’t the preastantior pars of the Bible for Christians in the West.