Why did Protestants remove the Apocrypha from the King James Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic21

Guest
I stumbled upon this page on Google when researching on the book of Sirach.

The first answer listed on this question gives a detailed account of the apocryphal books and their supposed origins.

It appears this author has several assumptions regarding the deuterocanonical books ranging from questions of authenticity and even the fact that Jesus and the apostles made no reference to them.

Are there any solid refutations for these claims and others that are listed in the article?
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Protestants-remove-the-Apocrypha-from-the-King-James-Bible
 
Somebody doesn’t like what it says then they remove it. Martin Luther tried to remove the Epistle of James because he didn’t like what it said.
 
Catholic21 said:
I stumbled upon this page on Google when researching on the book of Sirach.

The first answer listed on this question gives a detailed account of the apocryphal books and their supposed origins.

It appears this author has several assumptions regarding the deuterocanonical books ranging from questions of authenticity and even the fact that Jesus and the apostles made no reference to them.

Are there any solid refutations for these claims and others that are listed in the article?
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Protestants-remove-the-Apocrypha-from-the-King-James-Bible
Click to expand...
Simplest answer to the question of why they were removed is that they weren’t at the time and currently aren’t considered canonical in Judaism. It’s definitely more complicated – as @poche says, they do throw a bit of a wrench in bits of some Protestants’ theology.
 
Last edited:
One thing about the King James Apocrypha is it is mostly similar but also not the same as Catholic Bibles.
The numbering is different , for example the three additions in Daniel for us are considered separate books in Protestantism.
Also standard Protestant apocrypha also includes the books of 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh, which aren’t in Catholic Bibles but were in the Vulgate, up until recently actually. Following the Council of Trent, Pope Clement Vlll put them in an appendix to the Clementine Vulgate. This is why they are in Protestant Bibles with the Apocrypha though, because around the time of the reformation they were integrated in the Old Testament. So to them , 2 Maccabees is on the same level of authority as 2(4) Esdras.
A Protestant Apocrypha section in the Bible normally looks like this, as was in the KJV
-1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
-2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
-Tobit
-Judith
-Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
-Wisdom
-Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
-Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
-Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
-Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
-The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
-Prayer of Manasses
-1 Maccabees
-2 Maccabees

In reality we removed our “apocrypha” from the appendix of the Douay Rheims Bible in 1752 so I don’t know why we expect Protestants too have what they consider Apocrypha in their Bible
 
Last edited:
What about another claim in the article where it says the Catholic Church “Integrated these books in the Bible after the reformation to support their doctrine”? For instance, like praying to the saints. Also it further claims the New Testament makes contradictory claims from the Apocryphal books. For instance unbiblical doctrines on the Mass (comparing 2 Maccabees 12:42-45 to Hebrews 7:27)
 
Ultimately the real answer is that it was all about money. Read Stripping of the Altars by Duffy.

By overthrowing the Catholic Church in England the new protestant leaders were able to Confiscate all the wealth that was in the Catholic monasteries.

Below you can see images from the King James Bible referencing
The Deuterocanonical Books

King James Bible included so called “Apocryphal” Books

https://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/orthdomain/bible.html
 
When they were originally removed it was against English law to do so.
They were making a power play
 
Last edited:
JohnR77 said:
it was all about money.
Click to expand...
This is just silly. Suggesting that the Protestant leaders were solely motivated by money is nothing more than baseless ad hominem nonsense.

There are plenty of criticisms to level against the Protestant reformers without stooping to declaring them greedy and wholly disingenuous.
 
JohnR77 said:
Ultimately the real answer is that it was all about money. Read Stripping of the Altars by Duffy.

By overthrowing the Catholic Church in England the new protestant leaders were able to Confiscate all the wealth that was in the Catholic monasteries.

Below you can see images from the King James Bible referencing
The Deuterocanonical Books

King James Bible included so called “Apocryphal” Books

https://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/orthdomain/bible.htm
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what happened. The books were removed when England became committed to putting on the “Catholics are idol worshipppers” show in order to ally with the Islamic Ottoman Empire against the rest of Christian Europe.

Yes, England sold out Christ for considerably more than 30 pieces of silver.
 
Last edited:
I’m saying and have been saying for sometime on this forum and noone wants to acknowledge it.
A lot of Protestants think the Church was inconsistent by not including 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
In the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Norman Geisler and Ralph McKenzie, this is stated:

Roman Catholics accept eleven extra books not found in the Jewish (and Protestant) Bible (7 of which appear in the table of contents plus four small books appended, three in Daniel and one in Esther). These are sometimes called Deutero-Canoncal (Second Canon) books. These books were mostly written between 250 B.C. and the time of Christ. Catholics accept these as divinely inspired books and Protestants do not, considering them of various degrees of value historically and devotionally (hence, they were sometimes read in services). Although from the time of Augustine on these books were increasingly cited by some Church Fathers and even some local councils, they were not given an infallible status in the Old Testament canon by Catholics at the Council of Trent (in 1546). In actual fact, this is a good example of the corruption of doctrine in Catholicism since: (1) Unlike most canonical books, there is no implicit or explicit claim in them for divine inspiration; (2) Judaism never accepted these books as inspired. In fact, the first century Jewish historian lists the inspired books of the OT by name which excludes the Apocrypha(see Josephus, Against Apion 1.8); (3) Most of the early Church Fathers did not grant them canonical status; (4) The great Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected this books as part of the canon; (5) Although Jesus cited the vast majority of the Jewish Old Testament books as inspired, he never once quoted from an one of the eleven apocryphal books as inspired; (6) None of the apostles or writers of the New Testament ever cited any of these eleven books as inspired; (7) The Catholic official acceptance of these books (at Trent in 1546) was a sign of its doctrinal deterioration. For they inconsistently rejected an Apocryphal book opposed to praying for the dead (2) [4] Esdras 7:105 and yet accepted an apocryphal book in favor of praying for the dead (2 Mac. 12:45-46). This tended to support several Catholic doctrines which were part of the corruption of Christianity which included prayers for the dead, Purgatory, the unfinished nature of the Atonement, and Indulgences.
 
Last edited:
MarysLurker said:
40.png
JohnR77:
Ultimately the real answer is that it was all about money. Read Stripping of the Altars by Duffy.

By overthrowing the Catholic Church in England the new protestant leaders were able to Confiscate all the wealth that was in the Catholic monasteries.

Below you can see images from the King James Bible referencing
The Deuterocanonical Books

King James Bible included so called “Apocryphal” Books

https://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/orthdomain/bible.htm
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what happened. The books were removed when England became committed to putting on the “Catholics are idol worshipppers” show in order to ally with the Islamic Ottoman Empire against the rest of Christian Europe.

Yes, England sold out Christ for considerably more than 30 pieces of silver.
Click to expand...
Oh give me a break. The CoE didn’t go iconoclast to ally itself with the Muslims against Rome. Calvinism was ascendant. They weren’t being corrupt; they were being fanatics.
 
Big problem there: iconoclasm’s great heydays were before and after Elizabeth. In fact, the CoE got less iconoclastic during Elizabeth’s reign as it charted its now-signature via media course.
 
HopkinsReb said:
Big problem there: iconoclasm’s great heydays were before and after Elizabeth. In fact, the CoE got less iconoclastic during Elizabeth’s reign as it charted its now-signature via media course.
Click to expand...
That’s like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg. Sure the Calvinists stepped it up after Bad Queen Bess was gone, but the facts are what they are.

And yes, the CofE got better later on, but it took Wellington vanquishing Napoleon and saving the Pope to convince the White Anglo-Saxon elites that Catholicism was not an idolatrous cult such that the Catholic Relief Act could be passed. And even then, the prejudice didn’t disappear. It’s still with us today.

The deuterocanon removal is just part and parcel of that prejudice. Nothing more.
 
Last edited:
MarysLurker said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
Big problem there: iconoclasm’s great heydays were before and after Elizabeth. In fact, the CoE got less iconoclastic during Elizabeth’s reign as it charted its now-signature via media course.
Click to expand...
That’s like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg. Sure the Calvinists stepped it up after Bad Queen Bess was gone, but the facts are what they are.

And yes, the CofE got better later on, but it took Wellington vanquishing Napoleon and saving the Pope to convince the White Anglo-Saxon elites that Catholicism was not an idolatrous cult such that the Catholic Relief Act could be passed. And even then, the prejudice didn’t disappear. It’s still with us today.

The deuterocanon removal is just part and parcel of that prejudice. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Oh goodness gracious.

We have nothing else to say to each other if you really are this devoid of charity towards those with whom you disagree. Good day.
 
HopkinsReb said:
We have nothing else to say to each other if you really are this devoid of charity towards those with whom you disagree. Good day.
Click to expand...
That’s not a lack of charity. That’s just history. England was on the wrong side at Lepanto. Sorry if I’m just blunt with the facts. But it’s because I’ve gone through it myself. It is not fun to discover that your culture of origin weren’t always the good guys. It’s worse when your own family are still invested in it. I’m not as different as you think but this topic isn’t about me. Maybe I’m wrong for just bombarding you with data. Just forget about me and do your own research.
 
MarysLurker said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
We have nothing else to say to each other if you really are this devoid of charity towards those with whom you disagree. Good day.
Click to expand...
That’s not a lack of charity. That’s just history. England was on the wrong side at Lepanto. Sorry if I’m just blunt with the facts. But it’s because I’ve gone through it myself. It is not fun to discover that your culture of origin weren’t always the good guys. It’s worse when your own family are still invested in it. I’m not as different as you think but this topic isn’t about me. Maybe I’m wrong for just bombarding you with data. Just forget about me and do your own research.
Click to expand...
This is bizarre. You seem to think that, because I refuse to reduce the Protestants’ aims to cash grabs, I am wholly in the bag to defend England and the Church of England.

I’m quite invested in these questions, actually, because I’m an Anglican strongly considering becoming Catholic. I have many criticisms of the Anglican Church, both historical and current. Perhaps we can chalk this up to your not having been on the board very long, because I’m a frequent poster and often quite critical of Anglicanism.

It is not a defense of the Anglican iconoclasts to say that they were not corrupt but rather Calvinist radicals. It’s simply shifting their problem to a different area. I’m no defender of Calvinism and absolutely no defender of iconoclasm.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top