Why is Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) considered Apocrypha?

[IlCajetan]

Not too long ago I finally got my hands on a Catholic Bible and I was interested to read the Apocrypha, as it was taken out of Protestant and Jewish Bibles. I read all of Ecclesiasticus and I quite enjoyed the book. However, I’m curious as to why it is considered Apocrypha, because I’ve actually heard it was used to assemble the Old Testament in canonical order. I also didn’t find anything that went against Protestant or Jewish beliefs, so why did they make the effort to get rid of it?

 

[Vico]

…

It was not part of the Hebrew canon of scripture. When the Greek scriptures were transmitted it was included in the seventy. Martin Luther and other reformers limited their selection to the Hebrew canon.

 

[po18guy]

IlCajetan:

…

It was not part of the Hebrew canon of scripture. When the Greek scriptures were transmitted it was included in the seventy. Martin Luther and other reformers limited their selection to the Hebrew canon.

And this strikes me as surreal. As a Christian, go to those who rejected the Messiah and demanded His death, and beg them for a list of God’s Word.

Beam me up, Mr. Scott!

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

This is also why the argument for the Council of Jamnia (which didn’t happen) is so absurd anyway…why would Christians count on the Jew’s to give them an updated list of the proper books after they rejected Jesus. Its laughable at best.

 

[po18guy]

This is also why the argument for the Council of Jamnia (which didn’t happen) is so absurd anyway…why would Christians count on the Jew’s to give them an updated list of the proper books after they rejected Jesus. Its laughable at best.

Between 80-91% of the OT quotes in the New Testament, including those of Christ, come from the Septuagint collection - which contains the Deuterocanonical books.

Why is there even argument?

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Misinformation. False History.

unfortunately not everyone has time to research these things, but I know God accounts for this.

 

[JonNC]

ColoradoCatholic:

This is also why the argument for the Council of Jamnia (which didn’t happen) is so absurd anyway…why would Christians count on the Jew’s to give them an updated list of the proper books after they rejected Jesus. Its laughable at best.

Between 80-91% of the OT quotes in the New Testament, including those of Christ, come from the Septuagint collection - which contains the Deuterocanonical books.

Why is there even argument?

Question: why doesn’t the traditional western canon of 73 book’s contain the entire Septuagint? Prayer of Manasseh, 3 and 4 Macc. And others.
If the argument is that the Septuagint is to be accepted, it seems leaving parts of it out is contradictory.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Ok, so the “council of Jamnia” is a protestant argument that says basically this: because the Hebrews used only Hebrew scriptures written in Hebrew that means the Greek texts should be thrown out. Now bear in mind the Catholic Bible wasn’t even opposed until the 16th century. The "council of Jamnia wasn’t even proposed until the last 100-120 years. The reasoning behind the council of Jamnia is to have an excuse for not having 73 books in the bible. That all being said, Martin Luther didn’t even use this argument he just straight up got rid of them because they opposed his theology (Faith Alone). I think I remember him citing some ancient saints around the council of Rome when the canon was being debated that thought the dueterocanonicals shouldn’t be included but later submitted to the Pope’s decision to include them (I don’t remember the specific saints name but he often gets brought up when these questions are asked).

The reason why the Catholic Church uses the Septuagint argument is because like what was said previously, the New Testament quotes from it very often but they are using this argument simply to say the deuterocanon is inspired. all that being said, you are correct, there are books in the Septuagint that are not in the Catholic bible. HOWEVER you have to ask yourself the real question which is this: How do we even know what is inspired scripture and what is not? Well, the early church decided on this at the council of Rome in 382. They decided as a congregation of Bishops with the Pope what books should be in and what should be left out. It comes down to who has the AUTHORITY to make theological decisions. The Pope has the final say, and since in matters of Faith and Morals when making a dogmatic statement, he is infallibly led by the Holy Spirit these are the True Scriptures.

Without someone who we can trust to be led by the Holy Spirit we would all be running around making up our own beliefs and saying that “your truth is your truth, and my truth is my truth,” sound familiar? It’s because when everything is subjective Truth doesn’t exist. So when Martin Luther or the Eastern Orthodox decide they don’t need a Pope, they don’t need apostolic lineage to ensure the Holy Spirit is guiding the Faith, everything falls apart. things get added, taken away, churches break up, new denominations form, and separation between people ensues. You have to be Obedient to Christ’s words: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church” and stick with it, even if there is corruption, you find a way to fix it from the inside. you don’t just leave and try to figure it out yourself.

 

[Billy_Buescher]

The New Testament was not written in Hebrew either.

 

[Billy_Buescher]

The dead sea scroll did show some books were written in Hebrew…

Apocrypha (אפוקריפה) – The term “Apocrypha” is used here to refer to the specific collection of books considered to be canonical in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, but not part of the Hebrew Bible or Protestant canon. Three works of the Apocrypha are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls: Ben Sira (also known as the Wisdom of Ben Sira, Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus), the book of Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah.

 

[Vico]

The New Testament was not written in Hebrew either.

The Jews had changed language from Hebrew to Aramaic and Greek and would need training to properly understand Biblical Hebrew.

 

[JonNC]

Ok, so the “council of Jamnia” is a protestant argument that says basically this: because the Hebrews used only Hebrew scriptures written in Hebrew that means the Greek texts should be thrown out.

I certainly don’t say throw them out. Luther didn’t say throw them out. He does argue against the Greek, not because they were somehow bad, he was looking at the “ancients, including Eusebius.

Now bear in mind the Catholic Bible wasn’t even opposed until the 16th century.

Incorrect. There were people who disputed books all through Church history. In Luther’s era, this includes Catholics like Cajetan and Erasmus. There was dispute at the Council of Trent.

That all being said, Martin Luther didn’t even use this argument he just straight up got rid of them because they opposed his theology (Faith Alone).

Utterly and totally false. Tell me, what is in each of the DC’s that contradicts the doctrine of Justification. One at a time, please. Judith? Tobit?
I’ve have and have read his commentaries on all of them. He wrote them because he included them in his translation. IIRC, he doesn’t once mention the doctrine of justification.

The reason why the Catholic Church uses the Septuagint argument is because like what was said previously, the New Testament quotes from it very often but they are using this argument simply to say the deuterocanon is inspired.

I know the argument. I asked the question, why not all of the Septuagint?
The Prayer of Manasseh is an incredibly powerful book.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

1. Luther counted those books as less than the others and moved them to the appendix, so what do you call that? You can call it whatever you want but he is basically saying they are uninspired which effectively is “throwing them out” of the inspired canon
2. Are all 73 books still in the Catholic Bible? Yes. What changed? Nothing. Any church that has separated from the Catholic Church has 100% fallen into separation and split. (Lutherans may have been the 1st Protestants, but other groups broke off of Martin Luther’s Church within his own lifetime).
3. I don’t have enough time to go into that, you should start another thread about justification for this question. I already answered this in question 1.
4. Did you read my post? There isn’t a table of contents in the Bible, and it didn’t fall out of the sky. It was decided on by the Roman Catholic Bishops at the Council of Rome. Can’t call a council without a Pope, can’t have the Bible without Papal Authority.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I also didn’t find anything that went against Protestant … beliefs…

Some Protestants might object to Sirach 3:30:

Water extinguishes a blazing fire: so almsgiving atones for sin.

They might also object to the way Sirach attributed miracles to Elisha after his death:

In all his days he did not tremble before any ruler, and no one brought him into subjection.
Nothing was too hard for him, and when he was dead his body prophesied.
As in his life he did wonders, so in death his deeds were marvelous. (Sirach 48:12-14)

They might also object to the way Sirach directly addresses people who are no longer with us, such as Solomon (Sirach 47:14-20) and Elijah (Sirach 48:4-11).

 

[JonNC]

Luther counted those books as less than the others and moved them to the appendix, so what do you call that? You can call it whatever you want but he is basically saying they are uninspired which effectively is “throwing them out” of the inspired canon

If you want to use polemical language, fine, but the fact is he included them In his translation. He kept them despite his opinion as to their canonicity. Further, his view was shared by others without Church condemnation. Now, unless you think Cardinal Cajetan “threw them out”, too, perhaps a cordial conversation is appropriate.

Are all 73 books still in the Catholic Bible? Yes. What changed? Nothing. Any church that has separated from the Catholic Church has 100% fallen into separation and split.

Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I don’t have enough time to go into that, you should start another thread about justification for this question. I already answered this in question 1.

Then don’t bring it up without evidence.

Did you read my post? There isn’t a table of contents in the Bible, and it didn’t fall out of the sky. It was decided on by the Roman Catholic Bishops at the Council of Rome. Can’t call a council without a Pope, can’t have the Bible without Papal Authority.

And the Bishop of Rome can’t have a truly ecumenical council without the other Bishops. That’s why there is only 7 or them. But again, irrelevant information.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

JonNC, what background are you coming from? I’m getting a vibe that we are speaking past each other because I think you are Lutheran, but some of your stuff is making me think you are Eastern Orthodox.

OK NOW I UNDERSTAND i just had to read the whole argument again lol.

Luther got rid of them because of 2 Maccabees which implies purgatory, and that didn’t jive with the whole works are unnecessary for salvation or “Sola Fide”

At the Council of Rome there were only 73 books approved they didn’t put the whole septuigent in because that’s just what the bishops and Pope decided. Personally I don’t know exactly when the Eastern Orthodox added the remainder of those texts, but I’m pretty sure it was after the Schism. So Catholic would say Eastern Orthodox added them.

 

[po18guy]

The Church. Not individuals - the Church tested them.

 

[1ke]

I was interested to read the Apocrypha,

Please note, the proper term is Deuterocanon. Please refrain from using “apocrypha” to refer to books in the Catholic Old Testament canon.

Apocrypha refers to non-canonical books and in this context was used in a derogatory way by the reformers.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC, what background are you coming from? I’m getting a vibe that we are speaking past each other because I think you are Lutheran, but some of your stuff is making me think you are Eastern Orthodox.

Lutheran, which is the position from which I make my argument on the canon.
When councils are brought in, Lutherans generally hold the view I described.
I don’t mean this to be contentious. Luther’s reasons are often misrepresented here, often unintentionally. And sometimes his motives are impugned.
As a Lutheran, I have the freedom to say that I believe Luther did not give enough deference to the Catholic position on the canon, but he had the liberty to do so prior to Trent.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

So are the deuterocanonicals inspired or not? according to your view?