Why did Protestants remove the Apocrypha from the King James Bible?
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
Purgatory:
“it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead,
that they may be loosed from sins.”
2 Maccabees, 12 : 46
K
Kaninchen
Guest
So, protestants don’t have a basic prayer for the dead?
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Virtually all of them don’t, high-church Anglo-Catholics being an exception.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Nowadays a lot of them do have prayers for the dead – without ever stopping to think of the theological implications of them. I once mentioned to my wife, who was raised conservative evangelical five-point Presbyterian, that Calvinism is strictly against prayers for the dead, and she was quite shocked. But obviously, if you don’t believe in purgatory, what could possibly be their point? Those in heaven don’t need them and those in Hell are stuck.Kaninchen:
Virtually all of them don’t, high-church Anglo-Catholics being an exception.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Interesting point is that Clement is on record as including them due to their antiquity and fearing that they’d otherwise be lost to history. It wasn’t a canonical decision. It’s like how we keep the prologue to Sirach in the Bible while also explicitly stating we don’t consider the prologue inspired. This was actually in the 1500s when they were included for that reason.
Last edited:
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
That is a good point. Yes , what Clement Vlll said in the Vulgate in the preface was:
Oratio Manassa, necnon Libri duo, qui sub libri Tertii & Quarti Esdrae nomine circumferuntur, hoc in loco, extra scilicet seriem canonicorum Librorum, quos sancta Tridentina Synodus suscepit, & pro Canonicis suscipiendos decreuit, sepositi sunt, ne prorsus interirent, quippe qui a nonnullis sanctis Patribus interdum citantur, & in aliquibus Bibliis Latinis tam manuscriptis quam impressis reperiuntur.
The Prayer of Manasseh, as well as two books, which circulate under the name of the Third and Fourth Book of Ezra, are set aside in this place—that is, outside the series of canonical books, which the holy Tridentine Synod accepted, and determined should be taken up for canonical—lest they should perish completely, since they are sometimes cited by some of the holy Fathers, and they are found in some Latin books, both manuscript and printed.
Oratio Manassa, necnon Libri duo, qui sub libri Tertii & Quarti Esdrae nomine circumferuntur, hoc in loco, extra scilicet seriem canonicorum Librorum, quos sancta Tridentina Synodus suscepit, & pro Canonicis suscipiendos decreuit, sepositi sunt, ne prorsus interirent, quippe qui a nonnullis sanctis Patribus interdum citantur, & in aliquibus Bibliis Latinis tam manuscriptis quam impressis reperiuntur.
The Prayer of Manasseh, as well as two books, which circulate under the name of the Third and Fourth Book of Ezra, are set aside in this place—that is, outside the series of canonical books, which the holy Tridentine Synod accepted, and determined should be taken up for canonical—lest they should perish completely, since they are sometimes cited by some of the holy Fathers, and they are found in some Latin books, both manuscript and printed.
R
ReaderT
Guest
Last edited:
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
What I’m more interested in, is why were these three excluded at Trent? Is it somewhat an inconsistency on the part of the Church that they accepted all but these three?
This is obviously how they became part of standard Protestant apocrypha. Before Trent they were just in the Vulgate with no distinction of canonical status. I see people always saying Protestants should have the apocrypha in their Bibles, but these three texts are part of their apocrypha as well which we both consider apocrypha. I’m just curious how they ended up in the Vulgate and why they weren’t put in the canon of Trent.
I’m not criticizing the Church in anyway, I just have never really understood why it accepted all of the deuterocanonical books but not these three.
This is obviously how they became part of standard Protestant apocrypha. Before Trent they were just in the Vulgate with no distinction of canonical status. I see people always saying Protestants should have the apocrypha in their Bibles, but these three texts are part of their apocrypha as well which we both consider apocrypha. I’m just curious how they ended up in the Vulgate and why they weren’t put in the canon of Trent.
I’m not criticizing the Church in anyway, I just have never really understood why it accepted all of the deuterocanonical books but not these three.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
3 Esdras is basically just snippets from 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah combined together and seems like a proto-version of Ezra and Nehemiah. 4 Esdras was a popular read but it should be noted the Eastern Orthodox also don’t consider it canon.
Trent confirmed the Biblical Canon of the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.
The Eastern churches also have a more fluid sense of canon and inspired texts than Roman Catholics do, probably because they did not have to react to Protestantism the way the western Church did.
Last edited:
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
I believe some Slavic Orthodox do consider it Canon.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Matt Slick on CARM says the following regarding it.
The Apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word “Apocrypha” (απόκρυφα) means “Hidden.” These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
The Protestant Church rejects the Apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews; but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek - not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit) and contain some useful historical information.
The Apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word “Apocrypha” (απόκρυφα) means “Hidden.” These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
The Protestant Church rejects the Apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews; but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek - not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit) and contain some useful historical information.
V
vsedriver
Guest
Who has the authority to declare what is or what isn’t sacred scripture?
You can argue till the cows come home as to which books belong in the bible and which don’t. You can be the foremost authority on biblical text and it doesn’t matter one bit if you don’t have the authority to declare infallibly what is and what isn’t scripture.
You can argue till the cows come home as to which books belong in the bible and which don’t. You can be the foremost authority on biblical text and it doesn’t matter one bit if you don’t have the authority to declare infallibly what is and what isn’t scripture.
po18guy
Well-known member
Matt Slick is beloved of God, but could not be more wrong on much of his theology. His support of Christian division is absolutely unsupportable.
Some, for lack of a better term, Protestants, have some really excellent theology. Others have doctrine which leads to destruction. How can you tell who is correct? What over-riding authority (such as Jesus established) separates the wheat from the chaff; the sheep from the goats?
And therein lies the elephant in the sola scriptura living room.
Some, for lack of a better term, Protestants, have some really excellent theology. Others have doctrine which leads to destruction. How can you tell who is correct? What over-riding authority (such as Jesus established) separates the wheat from the chaff; the sheep from the goats?
And therein lies the elephant in the sola scriptura living room.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Is it strictly true that these three books were included in the Vulgate as rightfully to be accepted as part of the canonical OT? As @Thomasbradley312 notes, the Clementine Vulgate of 1592 put them in an appendix. Had there been some earlier edition in which they were accorded full canonical status?
Last edited:
JonNC:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Probably Erasmus.
The basic distinction is between a. the Hebrew text, which was canonized by the Jews, and b. The Greek text, which was used by Jews outside Palestine and then Christians.
The Protestant OT without the Apocrypha corresponds to the Hebrew text. The Apocrypha mostly corresponds to non Hebrew texts, Greek or Aramaic (though hebrew versions may exist for some, I am not sure)
The Catholic Apocrypha (3&4 Esdras, etc) is more complicated lol. Language divisions do not explain that, but it is good to keep them in mind.
By the same authority that others before Trent held opinions about them. It was permitted. That’s why a cardinal was permitted to hold essentially the same view as Luther.
This is a nonsensical polemic. It is like asking why Brazil has a certain law when all of South America didn’t vote on it.
True, because there were actually various unrelated reformation era movements.
This is nonsense, too. From the position of Lutherans, there were many people involved in the development of the use of the various books in the Bible, including the DC’s.
Last edited:
Slick is deceptive on a number of points here, particularly his reference to 1546 (Trent). For the Catholic Church in communion with the pope, the 73 book canon has always been essentially the view since Hippo, Carthage and Rome. Slick is trying to imply it was an innovation. It wasn’t.
Further, Slick is wrong about using the phrase,”Protestant Church “. There has never been such an entity.
- Status