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.
Okay, so God gave his command. But different men, at different times, have placed different interpretations upon that command. There is nothing ungodly or irreligious in accepting that there is a middle ground, in the shape of a dozen or more books that the churches disagree about. You can argue that there ought not to be a middle ground, which is a question of ethics. The fact remains that there is a middle ground.
You are right that there are “a dozen or more books that [denominations] disagree about”; indeed there are all types of issues which denominations disagree about, so I can’t disagree with that per-se.
 
Last edited:
Well when Jerome translated the Vulgate, Ezra-Nehemiah were one book. They weren’t separated until later. So when they say two, who knows what they mean? It could be as we think now or possibly it is Ezra-Nehemiah and 1(3) Esdras. Another proof of this is that Saint Ambrose actually referred to 2(4) Esdras as 3 Esdras. Ezra and Nehemiah were one book at the time.
 
However I do like your list of questions. These are also things I want to know.
 
Last edited:
Okay, Thomas. When you find out, please come back here and share your news with us!
 
By the way the only reason I always refer to them as 1(3) Esdras and 2(4) Esdras instead of one or the other, which in modern times people just call them 1 and 2 Esdras, but it’s because in the past theres always some wiseguy on here being like what are you talking about 1 and 2 Esdras are in my Douay Rheims Bible. It’s so annoying. They know exactly what I’m talking about.

The Hebrew name “Ezra” is transcribed as “Esdras” in the Greek versions of the Bible, and it was this latter form which then passed into the Latin versions. The canonical book of Ezra was designated by St Jerome as “Liber Esdrae,” and that of Nehemiah as “Liber Nehemiae, qui et Esdrae secundus – the book of Nehemiah, which is also called the second of Ezra.” The apocryphal books named above were therefore designated in Latin Bibles as Third and Fourth Esdras, and so they remained until the Reformation.

The early Protestant English Bibles changed a great many proper names, including those of some Biblical books, away from the traditional Latin versions found in the Vulgate, which is partly filtered though the Septuagint, to a more direct transcription of the Hebrew. Hence the prophet “Sophonias” became “Zephaniah” and “Nabuchodonosor” became “Nebuchadnezzar”; likewise, “Esdras” was changed to “Ezra.” The book of Nehemiah was no longer designated as “also called Second of Ezra.”

The editors of the King James Bible then made the extremely silly and confusing decision to use “Esdras”, the Greek version of “Ezra”, as the name of the two apocryphal books which had hitherto been known as Third and Fourth Esdras, while also renumbering them. Thus, the books known in the Vulgate as First to Fourth Esdras became “Ezra, Nehemiah, First Esdras and Second Esdras.” The matter is rendered more complex still by the fact that the Greek and Old Church Slavonic Bibles each have yet another different system for naming and numbering these books.
 
The argument that Matt Slick’s and other Protestants’ being wrong about things proves that there needs to be a visible authority only holds water if you can demonstrate that within the church which has a visible authority such errors are successfully stamped out.
You may want to define “stamped out”.

If by “stamped out” you mean that every priest and bishop will receive correction and repent of their wrong teachings and teach perfectly in their respective parishes/diocese at ALL times, i say first you would be conceding the fact that these men are being corrected to some degree by definition, and 2nd i refer you to all the letters Paul wrote to the churches “for correction”. If he wrote these letters there would have been a reason and im sure that reason continues today.

If by “stamped out” you mean to refer to the time frame in which correction should be realized, correction in a more timely manner according to you, i say God works in his own time frame and your time frame may not matter.

However, if the Matt Slicks of the world are actually wrong in their teachings, where does he receive this correction? Is there really no authoritative correction for them? Wouldn’t THAT be the definition of the gates of hell prevailing?
You cannot demonstrate that because there are loads of Catholics who refuse to accept Catholic teaching in a number of areas despite having been told the Catholic teaching repeatedly. It’s just not a good argument.
I hope you are not referring to the bad practices of adherents. I sure haven’t been speaking about bad practices of anyone not even Slick. 😉

Peace!!!
 
i say first you would be conceding the fact that these men are being corrected to some degree by definition,
I do concede the point that they receive correction. I’ve never denied that point, nor have I denied the importance of authority. I’ve simply said that the fact that some Protestants teach wrong doctrine does not prove that authority is needed, as authority cannot be demonstrated to have solved that problem where it exists. I’m arguing for good arguments and against bad arguments, not for lawlessness and against authority.
 
Last edited:
Well this is the point I make.
The KJV doesn’t include the apocrypha anymore.
But neither does the Douay Rheims Bible. Or any Catholic Bible besides the Baronius Press DouayRheims-Clementine Vulgate.
Essentially the Apocrypha which Protestants include among their apocrypha also includes these three texts which Catholics also say are apocrypha and were printed in the Douay Rheims until 1752.
So really, why did the KJV stop printing it? Probably the same reason the D-R stopped printing it. The Protestants don’t accept the deuterocanonical books as scripture and call them the Apocrypha, the reasons sound silly to us but they aren’t in communion with Rome so they can do what they want honestly. If they decide they want to start printing the Gospel of Thomas as scripture they can and there is nothing we can say about it.

Catholics don’t regard these three(1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh scripture which are part of the Protestant Apocrypha as scripture but nonetheless still have in history thought they were still good to be read.

This is the only modern printed Catholic Bible I know of that prints the apocrypha after the Old Testament.

https://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=50#tab=tab-1
 
Last edited:
Ultimately the real answer is that it was all about money. Read Stripping of the Altars by Duffy.
That is a very oversimplified reduction of Eamon Duffy’s thesis. Yes, there was a confiscation of monastic lands and chantry endowments, and parish valuables. But, Protestants were not unique in this. Catholic kings had seized church lands in the medeival past—since the Church owned a freakin lot of land they were always a tempting target when kings needed money. The only difference this time was that, for theological reasons, the monasteries were not allowed to start up again.

The Protestant church leaders were not the ones confiscating and getting wealthy. They wanted the wealth of the church to remain in the church but to be used for other purposes than simply maintaining religious houses or paying priests to say masses for the dead. It was the secular rulers who despoiled the church and used Protestant theology as a convenient excuse.
 
Last edited:
So, protestants don’t have a basic prayer for the dead?
Not typically. In most Protestant traditions, the prayers are for those who mourn the dead. You may see Protestant ministers quote Scripture that express the hope we have for the deceased or consigning the body to the ground. But that’s about it.

Anything else makes most Protestants nervous since there is strong cultural fear that you might suddenly go full medieval requiem mass. :crazy_face:
 
Last edited:
Anything else makes most Protestants nervous since there is strong cultural fear that you might suddenly go full medieval requiem mass. :crazy_face:
One day you’re a Baptist who slips up and says “Lord, please be with my departed father,” the next you’re doggy-paddling across the Tiber. It’s the slipperiest slope.
 
Lol ironically the requiem prayer comes from 2(4) Esdras 2:34-35.
Therefore I say to you, O nations that hear and understand, “Wait for your shepherd; he will give you everlasting rest, because he who will come at the end of the age is close at hand. Be ready for the rewards of the kingdom, because perpetual light will shine on you forevermore.
2 Esdras 2:34‭-‬35 NRSV-CI

Eternal rest grant unto them oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them
 
Last edited:
Probably Erasmus.
Actually, I was thinking of Philipp Melanchthon, who is credited with persuading his reformer “boss” to leave the New Testament alone. Melanchthon wrote quite an apologia harmonizing James with the writings of Paul. There was primarily one reformer who hated James (“I will have James in my fireplace”, “an epistle of straw”) and thus needed persuasion to cease tampering with Holy Writ.

Still unanswered:
  1. Why would anyone go to the descendants of the Pharisees and adopt the Pharisaic canon of scripture? We’ve all read Matthew 23.
  2. Where, and to whom, did God reveal that sacred writing, Holy Writ, scripture - whatver you call it - must be written in Hebrew?
 
Last edited:
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.
Let’s say this is true, and it may be. All that it proves is that both were wrong. Sadly, I think your position is that absolute truth has either not been revealed or is unknowable.
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.
Jon, for bible alone, you sure ignore the bible when it’s convenient. Acts 15. And each and every subsequent council. That is how the Lord set it up.
Hello?
True, because there were actually various unrelated reformation era movements.
What??? Agreement? I’m gonna drop dead of a heart attack.
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.
Who was the spark, jon? Who was the acknowledged leader?
 
Where, and to whom, did God reveal that sacred writing, Holy Writ, scripture - whatver you call it - must be written in Hebrew?
Moses.
That’s an easy one.
Why would anyone go to the descendants of the Pharisees and adopt the Pharisaic canon of scripture? We’ve all read Matthew 23 .
That is why I proposed Erasmus. He is closest to a modern textual critic, most others were more theological and many touched by antisemitism. Erasmus had more respect for Arabic scholarship, which already included Hebrew among their studies.

But I do not know that much about it. I am just guessing.
 
Let’s say this is true, and it may be. All that it proves is that both were wrong .
It is true.
That said, I’ve written often that I tend to disagree with their conclusions.
Sadly, I think your position is that absolute truth has either not been revealed or is unknowable.
You don’t seem to know my position, even though we’ve both been here for years.
Jon, for bible alone, you sure ignore the bible when it’s convenient. Acts 15 . And each and every subsequent council. That is how the Lord set it up.
Hello?
This doesn’t make sense. Does the Catholic Church hold councils with the Baptists?
No?
Then why would you expect Anglicans or Lutherans to go so.
You continue to promote the false narrative that “Protestants” are or were some monolith. It is not now nor has it ever been. Zwingli was never in communion with Luther. Nor was Calvin. They are entirely different groups.
What??? Agreement? I’m gonna drop dead of a heart attack.
Please don’t. 😁
But since we agree, I suspect you won’t make a reference such as the one that prompted our exchange.
Who was the spark, jon? Who was the acknowledged leader?
It depends on the movement. While Luther is acknowledged as the “spark”, his leadership, shared with others of the Evangelical Catholic churches, was not shared by Zwingli, or the Anabaptists. Had they “followed “ Luther, then you would have an argument.
 
The canonical book of Ezra was designated by St Jerome as “Liber Esdrae,” and that of Nehemiah as “Liber Nehemiae, qui et Esdrae secundus – the book of Nehemiah, which is also called the second of Ezra.”
Hi
can you find me the online document of Jerome stating that.
Thank you
 
I don’t thinks so.

Development of the Hebrew Canon (Wikipedia):


" There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE),[5] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.[6]"

Esdras - Wikipedia:


How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals (Catholic Answers):


" 3. But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.

This is a myth that always comes up but is simple to answer. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out."
 
Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent.
🎊🎉🥳

This deserves repeating, for all who claim Luther removed them!
 
I looked through the Wiki article on Lepanto that you linked to, and I failed to spot the name “England” anywhere in it. Perhaps I was going too quickly. Can you please tell me where to find it, exactly?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top