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

[MarysLurker]

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.

Neither am I. It’s too easy for someone like me to forget that Anglicanism is very broad in scope. Some Anglicans are nationalist, some are not. Sometimes the nationalism gets in the way of the seeking, as happened with C.S. Lewis; even with J.R.R. Tolkien prodding him on, he was too committed to the Ulster cause to consider Catholicism. I’m glad you aren’t like that and I’m sorry if I seemed to have grouped you in; I was just trying to present the facts without reference to you personally.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Some Anglicans are nationalist, some are not.

Considering I grew up in small-town Mississippi, it’d be really bizarre if I were in the nationalistic wing of Anglicanism!

I’m glad you aren’t like that and I’m sorry if I seemed to have grouped you in; I was just trying to present the facts without reference to you personally.

Nothing I’ve said in this thread has been a categorical defense of Protestantism or Anglicanism; it’s been a limited defense of specific people against a specific charge that I believe to be quite unfair. It was unfair for you to assume that that meant that I was a wholesale shill for the Church of England.

Rant over. Apology accepted.

 

[JonNC]

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.

The epistle appears in Luther’s translation starting with the first publishing of his NT translation in 1522. At no time is it ever excluded. Fact: Luther never tries to exclude it. If he had, he would have. In fact, Luther’s translation contains 74 books.
Throughout his life, he often preached from James.

 

[EZweber]

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)

That claim is, to be blunt, utter nonsense. These books were in use before the Incarnation, and certainly far before the Reformation.

 

[JonNC]

I’m quite invested in these questions, actually, because I’m an Anglican strongly considering becoming Catholic.

Some Catholics have an odd way of encouraging this.

 

[steve-b]

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

Re: the KJV and the apocrypha, they quote Luther, the Father of Protestantism

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

IOW he demoted 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status
1 & 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Judith

 

[HopkinsReb]

Catholic21:

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

Re: the KJV and the apocrypha, they quote Luther, the Father of Protestantism

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

IOW he demoted 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status
1 & 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Judith

Or, as the 39 Articles put it, “[a]nd the other Books (as [Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine[.]”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Catholic21:

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

Re: the KJV and the apocrypha, they quote Luther, the Father of Protestantism

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

IOW he demoted 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status
1 & 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Judith

Or, as the 39 Articles put it, “[a]nd the other Books (as [Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine[.]”

Jerome ultimately accepted those books as canonical. That’s why he included them in the 1st bible, having 73 books

 

[ReaderT]

I’ve got a Master’s in German; maybe I can be of assistance:

Here is a scan of the New Testament Index in Luther’s 1534 Bible - we can see that the last 4 books (Hebrews, Jude, James, Revelations - “Offenbarung”) are put in their own section at the end (an “addendum” or “index”):

Die Propheten || alle Deudsch.|| D. Mar. Luth.|| ([Bd. 2]) - Digitale Sammlungen der Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek

Already this shows that Luther didn’t put them on the same level as the rest of Holy Scripture. But in the introduction to that section, which can be seen here, Luther writes the following in archaic German, which I will translate to English:

Bisher haben wir die rechten gewissen heubtbücher des newen Testaments gehabt. Diese vier nachfolgende aber haben vorzeiten ein ander ansehen gehabt. Und auffs erst das diese Epistel zu den Ebreen nicht Sanct Paulus noch einiges Apostels sei beweiset sich dabey das im andern Capitel stehet also: Diese Lere ist durch die so es selbs von dem Herrn gehört haben auff uns komen und blieben. Damit wird es klar das er von den Aposteln redet als ein Jünger auff den solche lere von den Aposteln komen sei villeicht lange hernach …
Die Epistel St. Jacobi, wiewol sie von den Alten verworfen ist, lobe ich und halt sie doch für gut, darum dass sie gar kein Menschenlehre setzt und Gottes Gesetz hart treibt. Aber dass ich meine Meinung darauf stelle, doch olme Jedermannes Nachtheil, acht ich sie für keins Apostels Schrift; denn sie ist stracks wider St. Paul um und alle ander Schrift und gibt den Werken die Rechtfertigung;

Translation:

"Up until now we have had the well-known main books of the New Testament. The four following, however, have for a long time had a different character. And first of all, the fact that this Epistle to the Hebrews was not from St. Paul nor any other Apostle is proven by what it says in one of its chapters: “This teaching is as if it came from the Lord to us.” By this it becomes clear that he [the author] is speaking about the Apostles as one of his disciples, to whom this teaching of the Apostles came, maybe long afterwards …

The Epistle of St. James, although it was ridiculed by the Ancients, I praise and hold as good, because it doesn’t set forth any worldly teaching (“Menschenlehre”) but drives forth God’s law. But if I may voice my opinion, without harming the work, I don’t believe it to be Apostolic writing, because it is directly in contradiction with St. Paul and all other scripture about working for justification."

So, there we have it. Luther removed the books because they did not align with his understanding (“sola fide”). Luther thought his judgment was more valuable than 1,500 years of Tradition, the Early Church Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[BartholomewB]

Your first link, the table of contents of the 1614 KJV, shows that these books are already segregated, under the heading “Apocrypha”, and sandwiched in between the OT and the NT. Did any edition of the KJV ever place these books in the correct (Catholic) canonical order? I’ve never seen one.

 

[JonNC]

I’ve got a Master’s in German; maybe I can be of assistance:

Here is a scan of the New Testament Index in Luther’s 1534 Bible - we can see that the last 4 books (Hebrews, Jude, James, Revelations - “Offenbarung”) are put in their own section at the end (an “addendum” or “index”):

Die Propheten || alle Deudsch.|| D. Mar. Luth.|| ([Bd. 2]) - Digitale Sammlungen der Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek

Already this shows that Luther didn’t put them on the same level as the rest of Holy Scripture. But in the introduction to that section, which can be seen here, Luther writes the following in archaic German, which I will translate to English:

Translation:

"Up until now we have had the well-known main books of the New Testament. The four following, however, have for a long time had a different character. And first of all, the fact that this Epistle to the Hebrews was not from St. Paul nor any other Apostle is proven by what it says in one of its chapters: “This teaching is as if it came from the Lord to us.” By this it becomes clear that he [the author] is speaking about the Apostles as one of his disciples, to whom this teaching of the Apostles came, maybe long afterwards …

The Epistle of St. James, although it was ridiculed by the Ancients, I praise and hold as good, because it doesn’t set forth any worldly teaching (“Menschenlehre”) but drives forth God’s law. But if I may voice my opinion, without harming the work, I don’t believe it to be Apostolic writing, because it is directly in contradiction with St. Paul and all other scripture about working for justification."

No where does he say he wants to remove them. The fact that he would included it refutes the notion.
From your translation:

The Epistle of St. James, although it was ridiculed by the Ancients, I praise and hold as good, because it doesn’t set forth any worldly teaching (“Menschenlehre”) but drives forth God’s law.

He is here referencing the ancients, at least in
part Eusebius. He praises it, and includes it.
He does categorize it as Antilegomena, a category he did not make up. But he did include it.

It is often the case when it comes to Antilegomena books, Luther sites authorship.

So, there we have it. Luther removed the books because they did not align with his understanding (“sola fide”).

So, there you have your interpretation. No where does he say he removes books because he disagrees with them.

Luther thought his personal understanding to be more valuable than 1,500 years of Tradition, the Early Church Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils.

Oddly, in the quote you provide , he references the ECF’s. Your interpretation seems to be that by citing them he ignores them.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Why is 1 and 2 Esdras( or 3 and 4 in the Vulgate) and the Prayer of Manasseh among their apocrypha? Wouldn’t we both agree these three are apocrypha?

Why did the Church accept the other books Protestants call apocrypha but not these three? They obviously were in the Vulgate otherwise they wouldn’t have been in Protestants apocrypha.

 

[JonNC]

Here it is important that I again mention that I do not particularly agree with Luther’s evaluation of James, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, or the deuterocanon. I just believe that his evaluations and motivations for them are often misrepresented here.

 

[JonNC]

Why is 1 and 2 Esdras( or 3 and 4 in the Vulgate) and the Prayer of Manasseh among their apocrypha? Wouldn’t we both agree these three are apocrypha?

Why did the Church accept the other books Protestants call apocrypha but not these three? They obviously were in the Vulgate otherwise they wouldn’t have been in Protestants apocrypha.

Good question. The Prayer of Manasseh is regular reading and meditation for me during Lent.

 

[Syttu]

Because the Vulgate was a translation.

 

[Prodigal1984]

The 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church says regarding the Scriptures:
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther, Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses, The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

So basically to Anglicans, 2(4) Esdras is just as authoratative as 2 Maccabees?

 

[ReaderT]

No where does he say he wants to remove them. The fact that he unclothe refutes the notion.
From your translation:

He did remove them from the Canon, though - the page scan clearly shows that they were not (figuratively or literally) on the same level as Holy Scripture. He separated them.

From your translation:

Yes, Luther did think they were “good”, perhaps even useful, but that’s a far cry from Sacred. At any rate he thought they contradicted the rest of the Bible.

Oddly, in the quote you provide , he references the ECF’s. Your interpretation seems to be that by citing them he ignores them.

He ignored the majority of the ECF’s, whose consensus gave us the Bible at the Holy Councils.

 

[HopkinsReb]

So basically to Anglicans 2(4) Esdras is just as authoratative as 2 Maccabees?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[ReaderT]

Why is 1 and 2 Esdras( or 3 and 4 in the Vulgate) and the Prayer of Manasseh among their apocrypha? Wouldn’t we both agree these three are apocrypha?

Why did the Church accept the other books Protestants call apocrypha but not these three? They obviously were in the Vulgate otherwise they wouldn’t have been in Protestants apocrypha.

I apologize, I don’t know how the Germans made their Apocrypha - maybe someone else could answer?

 

[JonNC]

He did remove them from the Canon, though - the page scan clearly shows that they were not (figuratively or literally) on the same level as Holy Scripture. He separated them.

He did not remove them. He did follow an evaluation made throughout the history of the Church that they were disputed. He agreed with that ancient evaluation.

Yes, Luther did think they were “good”, perhaps even useful, but that’s a far cry from Sacred. At any rate he thought they contradicted the rest of the Bible.

Apples and oranges. I think, first, that he doesn’t say they aren’t sacred. He considers them disputed.
He certainly felt that the author did not emphasize Christ and Gospel, but instead the law. He is clear this is his personal evaluation, not binding on anyone.

He ignored the majority of the ECF’s, whose consensus gave us the Bible at the Holy Councils.

If you want to exclude from the category of ECF all those who held to different canons, that’s your choice. But to say Luther ignored them is patently false. As for the local councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome, Luther was not alone in holding a different opinion of the canon. The entirety of Eastern Orthodoxy does, as did Jerome and Luther contemporary Cajetan. Liberty in this regard was permitted until Trent.