Why did the Protestant reformers remove the Deuterocanonicals from the Bible?

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. A Protestant friend of mine is asking me why the Protestant reformers removed the Deuterocanonicals from the Bible but I don’t really know how to answer this. Could you please provide me with a brief and easy to understand answer for him?

 

[savedsinner]

I would say they removed these books because they contradicted the newly formed theology of the Protestant reformation.

These books contain the primary teaching of purgatory and praying for the dead, (which are found in Maccabees).

Martin Luther also tried to downgrade the book of James because it seemed to him to condradict his teaching on being saved by faith alone.

But for the Deuterocanocial books though, I would say that because of the abuses of indulgences which needed to be reformed, the reformers got rid of the entire teaching on purgatory. And they did this by removing these books which strongly teach it.

They threw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Teflon93]

Once you decide to make yourself Pope, you might as well remake Scripture in your image too.

 

[JMBNH]

Luther removed Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation along with the deuterocanonicals and put them into an ‘Apocrypha’ section, mostly because they didn’t agree with his views, though Hebrews because he didn’t know who wrote it and Jude because it quotes Enoch. No idea why he took out Esther, though he said ‘I am so opposed to Esther and 2 Maccabees that I wish we’d never received them at all’ and also ‘I consider Revelation about as believable as 4th Esdras’. He also famously described James as an ‘Epistle of Straw’ and criticised books he left in ‘Jonah’s so childish it almost made me laugh’ etc. The other reformers took a longer 66 book canon as they decided to base their Old Testament on the Jewish scriptures, though their canon was fixed at the same time they banned Christians from Synagogues in 90AD

 

[Epistemes]

The deuterocanonicals were dropped for purely doctrinal reasons. See James Akin’s comment on the subject:

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

 

[scott1228]

I find it interesting that 1 Maccabees was not included in the council of Javneh’s canon, since that includes the event that is commemorated by Hannukah, which we all know is celebrated all over the world.

This whole controversy points to a continuing need for the guidance of the church. Just because something comes from a printing press with a fancy cover doesn’t mean it is accurate.

It is the authority of the church that guides us and let’s us know which books belong to the canon of Holy Scriptures.

Not only that, the world owes those Catholic monks a debt of gratitude, because without their meticulous transcription of these books, no one would have a Bible today.

 

[lizaanne]

Take a listen HERE - this may answer many questions for you.

THIS would as well.



~Liza

 

[JMBNH]

I find it interesting that 1 Maccabees was not included in the council of Javneh’s canon, since that includes the event that is commemorated by Hannukah, which we all know is celebrated all over the world.

This whole controversy points to a continuing need for the guidance of the church. Just because something comes from a printing press with a fancy cover doesn’t mean it is accurate.

It is the authority of the church that guides us and let’s us know which books belong to the canon of Holy Scriptures.

Not only that, the world owes those Catholic monks a debt of gratitude, because without their meticulous transcription of these books, no one would have a Bible today.

1 Maccabees was excluded primarily because it encouraged rebellion against the colonial powers (the Greeks in 1 Maccabees, Romans at the time of Jamnia), which had just been tried unsuccessfully by the Jews and the Rabbis didn’t want a repeat of (but there was twice again anyway til Jews got chucked out of Judea and about 1 million killed when the Romans REALLY lost patience)

 

[DarkMark]

Martin Luther took the deuterocanonicals books out because his new ideas didn’t agree with Sacred Scriptures. He also oppose Esther and several NT Books. If His followers would have listen to him completely, Protestants will be missing close to 10 (if not more) books from their Bibles.

The Church has always accepted the Deuterocanonicals Books. It was in the 1500s that the books was being questioned heavily.

The Doctrines of Praying for the dead, the intercession of the saints, the importance of Almsgiving (etc) were in the Deuterocanonicals books, and Martin Luther did not accept these doctrines, which makes perfect sense why, without any authority, remove them from his Bible.

Protestants today follow Martin Luther Canon of Scriptures instead of the Church Canon.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Martin Luther took the deuterocanonicals books out because his new ideas didn’t agree with Sacred Scriptures. He also oppose Esther and several NT Books. If His followers would have listen to him completely, Protestants will be missing close to 10 (if not more) books from their Bibles.

The Church has always accepted the Deuterocanonicals Books. It was in the 1500s that the books was being questioned heavily.

The Doctrines of Praying for the dead, the intercession of the saints, the importance of Almsgiving (etc) were in the Deuterocanonicals books, and Martin Luther did not accept these doctrines, which makes perfect sense why, without any authority, remove them from his Bible.

Protestants today follow Martin Luther Canon of Scriptures instead of the Church Canon.

a.) Martin Luther’s translation of the bible included all the books found in Jerome’s canon.

b.) Believers from Melito (2nd century) to Cajetan (Reformation time period) questioned the deuterocanonicals. In fact, the vulgate that the church used contained Jerome’s derogatory prefaces to each of the deuterocanonical books causing doubt as to their canonocity.

c.) Even at Trent we find the bishops/cardinals tasked with voting on which books to include in the canon doubting that the deutero’s should be included.

 

[DarkMark]

a.) Martin Luther’s translation of the bible included all the books found in Jerome’s canon.

b.) Believers from Melito (2nd century) to Cajetan (Reformation time period) questioned the deuterocanonicals. In fact, the vulgate that the church used contained Jerome’s derogatory prefaces to each of the deuterocanonical books causing doubt as to their canonocity.

c.) Even at Trent we find the bishops/cardinals tasked with voting on which books to include in the canon doubting that the deutero’s should be included.

a) I don’t see your point, Luther placed the deuterocanonicals books between the Old Testament and New Testament (he did this without any authority), He did not believe they were Scriptures. He also oppose Esther, and several NT Books. if Luther had it his way completely, Protestants will have 10 or more books missing from their Bibles.

b) The Majority of Christians believed they were Scriptures. This is can seen by reading the Early Church Fathers. Melito did not include Esther is His canon, but included Wisdom. While St. Jerome expressed some uneasiness about the authority of the Apocrypha at first, later he submitted to the authority of Catholic Church which accepted them. And many of His writings, He used the deuterocanonical as Scriptures. He placed the authority of the Church above his opinions.

c) The Council of Trent did not doubt the deutero. By the the fourth century (Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Carthage in 396 AD), the Church officially announced the deuterocanonical as Scriptures. It was included it the canon. Them “voting” does not prove anything.

You have not proven that the deuterocanonical are not Scriptures. Martin Luther removed them, and so now all of your Protestant Bible (with the exception of a few that included but under the title “Apocryphal”) do not have these books. Those are the facts.

By what authority do you claim only 66 books of the Bible?

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

 

[Pwrlftr]

a) I don’t see your point, Luther placed the deuterocanonicals books between the Old Testament and New Testament, He did not believe they were Scriptures.

Earlier you made the claim that “If His followers would have listen to him completely, Protestants will be missing close to 10 (if not more) books from their Bibles.” which clearly isn’t true as anyone who wants to take the time to take a look at Luther’s bible can confirm.

DarkMark:

b) The Majority of Christians believed they were Scriptures. This is can seen by reading the Early Church Fathers. Melito did not include Esther is His canon, but included Wisdom. While St. Jerome doubted the books at first, later he submitted to the authority of Catholic Church which accepted them. And many of His writings, He used the deuterocanonical as Scriptures.

Melito’s canon only included the protocanonical books.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther.

Euseibius’ quote of Melito’s work mentions Proverbs, also called Wisdom.

Jerome never ever changed his mind about the canonocity of the deutero’s.

DarkMark:

c) The Council of Trent did not doubt the deutero. By the the fourth century, the Church officially announced the deuterocanonical as Scriptures.

Okay, what do you call “The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books.”Metzger (pg. 246)
Does this not confirm what I said in my previous post? By the way, in my last post I should have said SOME of the bishops/cardinals tasked with voting on the canon rejected them or doubted their canonocity.

DarkMark:

You have not proven that the deuterocanonical are not Scriptures. Martin Luther removed them, and so now all of your Protestant Bible (with the exception of a few that included but under the title “Apocryphal”) do not have these books. Those are the facts.

I didn’t try to prove the deutero’s aren’t scripture but nothing I posted earlier or in this post is incorrect.

Martin Luther did reject the deutero’s, that’s true. But he was certainly not the first to do so, not by a long shot.

Also, what exactly does it mean that the

DarkMark:

By the the fourth century, the Church officially announced the deuterocanonical as Scriptures.

Does this mean that it was dogmatically/infallibly declared? If not, what does your statement mean?

 

[DarkMark]

Earlier you made the claim that “If His followers would have listen to him completely, Protestants will be missing close to 10 (if not more) books from their Bibles.” which clearly isn’t true as anyone who wants to take the time to take a look at Luther’s bible can confirm.

Melito’s canon only included the protocanonical books.

Euseibius’ quote of Melito’s work mentions Proverbs, also called Wisdom.

Jerome never ever changed his mind about the canonocity of the deutero’s.

Okay, what do you call “The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books.”Metzger (pg. 246)
Does this not confirm what I said in my previous post? By the way, in my last post I should have said SOME of the bishops/cardinals tasked with voting on the canon rejected them or doubted their canonocity.

I didn’t try to prove the deutero’s aren’t scripture but nothing I posted earlier or in this post is incorrect.

Martin Luther did reject the deutero’s, that’s true. But he was certainly not the first to do so, not by a long shot.

Also, what exactly does it mean that the

Does this mean that it was dogmatically/infallibly declared? If not, what does your statement mean?

1. Melito included Wisdom. Melito’s canon is found in Eusebius EH4.26.13–14[28]:
   
   “Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.”

1. What do you mean that Jerome never changed His mind? We have proof that later on he accepted it under the authoity of Catholic Church, despite His doubts. He also quoted them and called them “Scripture” One quote of many:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

1. The main point is that the Church by the the fourth century (Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Carthage in 396 AD) confirm that the deutros were Scriptures. These councils are binding, which is why the Church cites the previous Council of Hippo and Carthage in the Council of Trent. The Majority of Christians during the 1st Century and on believed these books were Scriptures.
2. Martin Luther rejected Esther and several NT Books. The only reason why He included it is because His could not convince others that they were not Scriptures, otherwise He would place other books in the “Apocrypha” list.

 

[Pwrlftr]

1. The main point is that the Church by the the fourth century (Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Carthage in 396 AD) confirm that the deutros were Scriptures. These councils are binding, which is why the Church cites the previous Council of Hippo and Carthage in the Council of Trent.

I’ll get to the rest of your post later but if the earlier councils were binding:
a.) Why did Trent have a vote? Why no simply restate the canon from the earlier councils?

b.) If the earlier councils were binding, why would Trent pass over in silence 1 Esdras?

 

[Pwrlftr]

1. Martin Luther rejected Esther and several NT Books. The only reason why He included it is because His could not convince others that they were not Scriptures, otherwise He would place other books in the “Apocrypha” list.

If he included the books wouldn’t it be more accurate to say the at one point questioned the canonoical status of “X” but later included it or them in his translation of the bible?

 

[Pwrlftr]

1. Melito included Wisdom. Melito’s canon is found in Eusebius EH4.26.13–14[28]:
   
   “Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.”

Mark,

There probably isn’t much point in spending too much time on Melito but I do have two questions:
a.)What do you make of the Catholic Enclopedia section I quoted that says Melito only included the protocanonicals minus Esther? Wisdom isn’t in the protocanonicals.

b.)Is it possible that the “Wisdom also” phrase refers to Proverbs which is a book of Wisdom?

 

[DarkMark]

I’ll get to the rest of your post later but if the earlier councils were binding:
a.) Why did Trent have a vote? Why no simply restate the canon from the earlier councils?

b.) If the earlier councils were binding, why would Trent pass over in silence 1 Esdras?

The Council of Trent invoke the list of Scriptures of those councils. The Council of Trent, once and for all, closed the canon.

Second, I don’t know what do you mean. 1 Esdras is also called Ezra. In the Latin Vulgate Ezra-Nehemiah = 1 & 2 Esdras

I will get to your other posts later.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Council of Trent invoke the list of Scriptures of those councils. The Council of Trent, once and for all, closed the canon.

Second, I don’t know what do you mean. 1 Esdras is also called Ezra.

I will get to your other posts later.

No problem.

The easiest place to go to learn more about the Trent and passing over in silence issue is Gary Michuta’s website www.handsonapologetics.com

If you don’t know, Gary is a catholic apologist…I didin’t figure you would go to www.aomin.org (James White page)

Anyway, Gary has some information on this topic for free on his website.

 

[DarkMark]

Mark,

There probably isn’t much point in spending too much time on Melito but I do have two questions:
a.)What do you make of the Catholic Enclopedia section I quoted that says Melito only included the protocanonicals minus Esther? Wisdom isn’t in the protocanonicals.

b.)Is it possible that the “Wisdom also” phrase refers to Proverbs which is a book of Wisdom?

But the Proverbs were alreadly mention, and the he said “Wisdom also”.

Anyway, Melito canon is not “authoritative”. The Church, Christ’ Bride, included the deutros. That is the only thing that matters really.