Why do most protestants reject the deuterocanonical books?

[Mishakel]

Ironically, the t-word, tradition. You’ll find, that even the Protestant Bibles that included the deuterocanonical books did not consider them scripture. The reason Protestants don’t accept the deuterocanonical books as biblical, as inspired scripture, is because the reformers didn’t, that’s it.

There’s way more to unpack here than I can possibly put into a single post. I believe the experts on both sides of Catholicism and Protestantism believe that scripture is theopneustos or God breathed. Here is the major difference. Catholicism will say, paraphrasing, we the church or body of Catholicism must decide what is cannon and what is not and the key is claim to have the authority to do so. Protestantism says sola scriptura, again paraphrasing, the fact that scripture is theopneustos supports the fact no outside body other than God determines what is to be accepted.

Jesus held the Jews accountable to scripture. Both sides agree to this. Jesus pointed the Jews to scripture time and again saying “have you not read”. We have to conclude the Jews had a “cannon” if you will, of the Old Testament. If you are alive 50 years before the birth of Christ, as a Jew could you have known what “scripture” was? Jesus clearly tells us they had to know because as both sides can see he holds the Jews accountable to what “scripture” says.

There were no Jewish apostles, or prophets, or magisterium, or infallible seat which was the head of all Jews. Yet they had in their possession scripture that was theopneustos. How did the Jews determine what was theopneustos??? Jesus himself said in Matthew 22 “have you not read what was spoken to you by God”.

Scripture was written by men but given directly by God. God doesn’t need a church or any institution to decide what is or what is not theopneustos. God gets to give the cannon. He is the ultimate authority.

So the point is if the Jews 50 years before Christ rejected the deuterocanonical books as theopneustos, which they clearly did, why would we come along later and say those books are indeed theopneustos? The Jews had the exact same scriptures which are the 39 books of the Old Testament laid up in the Temple 200 years before Christ was born as we see in any Protestant Old Testament.

We could go on about Popes themselves rejecting the deuterocanonical books but I don’t need that as evidence. The evidence for what Jews considered to be theopneustos is clear and Christ held them accountable to it. This is the ultimate answer.

 

[BartholomewB]

The Jews had the exact same scriptures which are the 39 books of the Old Testament laid up in the Temple 200 years before Christ was born as we see in any Protestant Old Testament.

Yes, Second Temple Judaism already had a canon, but nobody knows the full details of which books, exactly, were considered canonical in the Herodian period and which weren’t. The Jewish canon in use today was established at a slightly later date, a few years after the fall of Jerusalem in 70.

 

[tgGodsway]

The reason Protestants don’t accept the deuterocanonical books as biblical, as inspired scripture, is because the reformers didn’t, that’s it.

No… Actually the reformers new that Jesus and His apostles knew about them but never recognized them as the word of God. It’s that simple.

 

[Mishakel]

The reason Protestants don’t accept the deuterocanonical books as biblical, as inspired scripture, is because the reformers didn’t, that’s it.

You’re quoting a quote of someone else and attributing it to me. I put that quote in my post but I am not the originator of it.

 

[adf417]

The evidence for what Jews considered to be theopneustos is clear and Christ held them accountable to it. This is the ultimate answer.

Its not the ultimate answer because that what Jesus held them accountable to was clearly the OT. The NT had not fully been written yet when Jesus said “have you not read”.

Peace!!!

 

[BartholomewB]

The NT had not fully been written yet when Jesus said “have you not read”.

“Not fully”? Not even partly, I think.

 

[Mishakel]

Its not the ultimate answer because that what Jesus held them accountable to was clearly the OT. The NT had not fully been written yet when Jesus said “have you not read”.

I haven’t discussed the NT. What I’m saying is in answer to this topic’s question regarding why Protestants reject the deuterocanonical books.

I think you have missed my point. Christ held the Jews accountable to the OT scripture correct? We’re all in agreement to this. We know historically that the 39 books of the OT that are present in the Protestant OT were actually inside the Jewish temple at least 200 years prior to Christ being born.

The deutercanonical books were never in the temple, the Jews didn’t regard them as theopneustos, and Christ didn’t hold Jews accountable for their writings.

This is the difference.

Again, the Jews were held accountable by Christ to the writings of those 39 books. Why then would we come along centuries later and add books to the OT to which the Jews were not held accountable to nor did the Jews believe to be theopneustos???

This is the answer to the OP’s question.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

Its not the ultimate answer because that what Jesus held them accountable to was clearly the OT. The NT had not fully been written yet when Jesus said “have you not read”.

I haven’t discussed the NT. What I’m saying is in answer to this topic’s question regarding why Protestants reject the deuterocanonical books.

I think you have missed my point. Christ held the Jews accountable to the OT scripture correct? We’re all in agreement to this. We know historically that the 39 books of the OT that are present in the Protestant OT were actually inside the Jewish temple at least 200 years prior to Christ being born.

The deutercanonical books were never in the temple, the Jews didn’t regard them as theopneustos, and Christ didn’t hold Jews accountable for their writings.

This is the difference.

Again, the Jews were held accountable by Christ to the writings of those 39 books. Why then would we come along centuries later and add books to the OT to which the Jews were not held accountable to nor did the Jews believe to be theopneustos???

This is the answer to the OP’s question.

You said its the “ultimate answer” and now you are limiting the question. If you don’t include the NT canonization into the fuller discussion it will always be only “a part of the answer.” and not “The bible” as we know it which I think it is acceptable to assume the context from which the OP was coming from . The canonization of the NT if vitally important to this and all discussions dealing with the Christian scriptures and less to do with the Jewish scriptures.

Peace!!!

 

[Mishakel]

The great historian Josephus gives us evidence

From his writings “We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men”

The 22 books mentioned make up the same 39 books we have in the Protestant OT.

Josephus lived from A.D. 37-100.

Josephus includes the same three divisions of the Hebrew Scripture, as had the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus and Philo. He limits the number of canonical books in these three divisions to twenty-two. This would be the same as the current twenty-four – Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentation attached to Jeremiah. He says there has been no more authoritative writings since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (464-424 B.C.). This is the same time of Malachi – the last book in the Old Testament.

We know that Artaxerxes ruled for forty years. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his rule. The Bible says:

Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king (Ezra 7:8).

• Nehemiah came in his twentieth year:In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before [Nehemiah 2:1. Therefore the last canonical books were composed in this period.
  Between the time of Malachi and Josephus’ writing (425 B.C. to A.D. 90) no additional material were added to the canon of Scripture. Consequently there was the notion of a long period of time without a divinely authoritative Word from God.

 

[Mishakel]

The old testament Protestants use is just what the European Jewish canon was. And also we aren’t Jewish to begin with so I don’t see why we are bound to accept only what they do. Should we not accept the New Testament as well?

Again, I’m only commenting on the question in the OP. The NT is an entirely different discussion. I wouldn’t point to Josephus to argue that scripture in the NT is theopneustos.

The views of Josephus would have represented those of Palestinian Judaism in the first century. This is my point and remains historical evidence as to why as a Protestant I would not consider the deutercanonical books to be God breathed or theopneustos. I hope you at least see this point on this and I think you do.

The NT is not in the same discussion really.

Here’s the larger viewpoint as I’ve already alluded to. The Jews at Christ’s time were held accountable to scripture, only the OT. Rome or Catholicism didn’t give the Jews their scripture nor did they canonize it for them. This is the point. The Jews knew full well what scripture was, its importance, and that it was indeed God breathed.

If you want to say that centuries later Catholicism had councils where it formally agreed to canonize a form of OT and NT I will agree that happened historically. But I don’t lend credence to the idea that without Rome we would have no NT “scripture” today. Again, God and only God determines what his infallible word is. All praise should be given to God alone for revealing himself through the prophets and apostles.

 

[tgGodsway]

okay, my pardon.

 

[lanman87]

Here is a list of reasons that I found.

• None of the deuterocanonical books claim to be inspired
• None of the books were written by a true prophet or apostle of God
• Non of the writers of books were confirmed with divine miracles
• They don’t contain any predictive prophecy
• At least one book 2 Maccabees, admits it is an abridgment of another mans work (see 2 Maccabees 2:23) and expresses concern on whether a good job was done or not (see 2 Mac 15:38). This would not be the case if it were inspired by God.
• No New Testament writer quotes any deuterocanonical book as Holy Scripture or gives them any authority.
• There was not unanimous belief in the early church (or even the medieval church) that the deuterocanonical books were inspired. Some church fathers considered the books worthy of devotion or preaching but did not consider them canonical.
• One of the earliest list of Old Testament books from Melito, the Bishop of Sardis, around 170 does not contain the deuterocanonical books. It contains the other Old Testament books except for Esther.
• When Athanasius wrote his Paschal Letter he list the deutercanoonical books but says “the are not indeed included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and wish for instruction in the word of godliness” (in other words they aren’t part of the canon but are good for devotion).
• First century Jews, to whom the Old Testament was given, did not consider them part of their Canon.
• There are historical errors in the deuterocanonical books. This would not be the case if they are “God breathed”.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

@learningchristian if you are interested in learning more about why Protestants don’t accept these additional books, you might be interested in a book written by a former Catholic, turned Protestant, published earlier this year:

Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

 

[JonNC]

Jon NC vs. christianity?

Meaning?..

 

[tgGodsway]

If you want to say that centuries later Catholicism had councils where it formally agreed to canonize a form of OT and NT I will agree that happened historically. But I don’t lend credence to the idea that without Rome we would have no NT “scripture” today. Again, God and only God determines what his infallible word is. All praise should be given to God alone for revealing himself through the prophets and apostles.

This is a great statement!!!

 

[tgGodsway]

I love Ianman87’s perspective. He is so right on.

 

[Dougbro1]

None of the deuterocanonical books claim to be inspired

Neither do many books in many other books in Scripture, like Jonah or Obadiah. Doesn’t mean they aren’t Scripture. This reason isn’t a very strong one.

None of the books were written by a true prophet or apostle of God

Would you mind explaining why this is a requirement to be Scripture? If the authors were inspired, it wouldn’t matter whether they are apostle or prophet. David wasn’t a prophet, nor an apostle, yet wrote many of the Psalms in the Bible.

Non of the writers of books were confirmed with divine miracles

Again, why is this criteria for Scripture?

They don’t contain any predictive prophecy

Erm…yeah…I’ll leave you with this link.

Prophecies from Every Deuterocanonical Book Sacred Scripture

Each of the Deuterocanonical books has prophetic testimony to prove that they are from God. Here are some examples: Wisdom Wisdom 2:1, 12-22 “[1] For they have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right… [12] Let us therefore lie in wait for the just man, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [13] He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth hi…

At least one book 2 Maccabees, admits it is an abridgment of another mans work (see 2 Maccabees 2:23) and expresses concern on whether a good job was done or not (see 2 Mac 15:38). This would not be the case if it were inspired by God.

It appears this isn’t an argument against the other deuterocanonical books, just 2 Maccabees.
Furthermore, it’s possible that the writer didn’t know he was writing Scripture, just like any other writer of the other books. If anything, the latter verse should be seen as humility on the part of the writer. St. Paul wrote quite a few letters, and likely didn’t expect them to be compiled into something bigger. Just because the writer wrote, “I hope what I wrote isn’t wrong” doesn’t mean that what he wrote IS wrong.

No New Testament writer quotes any deuterocanonical book as Holy Scripture or gives them any authority.

New Testament writers don’t quote other OT books as Scripture either. Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books—such as the Song of Songs—that are also not quoted in the New Testament.

There was not unanimous belief in the early church (or even the medieval church) that the deuterocanonical books were inspired. Some church fathers considered the books worthy of devotion or preaching but did not consider them canonical.

The canon of Scripture has undergone a lot of discernment and deliberation. Surely there were books other than the deuterocanonicals that were under dispute.

 

[Dougbro1]

One of the earliest list of Old Testament books from Melito, the Bishop of Sardis, around 170 does not contain the deuterocanonical books. It contains the other Old Testament books except for Esther.

If this is a reason to exclude the Deuterocanons, then it’s also a reason to exclude Esther under this line of logic.

When Athanasius wrote his Paschal Letter he list the deutercanoonical books but says “the are not indeed included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and wish for instruction in the word of godliness” (in other words they aren’t part of the canon but are good for devotion).

Firstly, right after the portion of the letter you quoted, he lists the books he was talking about as " The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit"
So, Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. This means he considered Baruch and Maccabees as Scripture, but not Esther. Are we to exclude Esther on this basis? If not, why exclude those four deuterocanons?

First century Jews, to whom the Old Testament was given, did not consider them part of their Canon.

Back then, their canon consisted of 24-ish books, so we’d end up making a lot of cuts to the OT, if this is a reason to exclude certain books.

There are historical errors in the deuterocanonical books. This would not be the case if they are “God breathed”.

Examples?

 

[lanman87]

Examples?

Where Was Baruch? According to the prophet Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem on the tenth day, fifth month, of the nineteenth year of his reign (Jer. 52:12-13). Subsequent to this, both the prophet and his scribe, Baruch, were taken into Egypt (Jer. 43:6-7). At this same time, the Apocrypha claims that Baruch was actually in Babylon (Baruch 1:1-2).

Contradictions With Itself: There are two contradictory accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, that dreaded enemy of the Jews. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were “cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the treachery of Nanaea’s priests” (2 Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was “taken with a noisome sickness” and so “ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land” (2 Maccabees 9:19-29).

When Did Tobit Die? Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (Tobit 14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 @B.C.2)—a span of some 210 years! (1:3-5).

Creation Contradiction: Rather than the creation being spoken into existence from nothing by the word of Almighty God, as affirmed in the Scriptures (Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6-9; Heb. 11:3), the Apocrypha has God creating the world out of “formless matter” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).

Also considered the following:

• Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
• Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

Any one of those is enough to exclude them from being considered scripture.

 

[Dougbro1]

Perhaps these examples cover Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Baruch, but I fail to see where this means that Sirach and 1 and 2 Maccabees must be left out. Furthermore, not all of the books in the Bible are meant to be taken in a literal historical sense. Song of Songs, for one. And there are parables galore! Just because the parables in the Bible aren’t historical, doesn’t mean they aren’t inspired. It’s possible that some of these, like Tobit and Judith, are meant to be taken in an allegorical sense.

As for the supposed Baruch inconsistency, it is not clearly defined how long a generation is supposed to be. Maybe the idea of a generation is meant to be allegorical. Allegory is common in the Bible.