Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books

[House_Harkonnen]

Ah, so WELS does use them, they simply aren’t cited or read from the lectionary - just like 95% of the LCMS. Whew. I was about to be very confused. I’ve always found the Divine Service and Lutheran hymnody to be more or less identical across Synodical lines. I was forming a question as to why/when WELS would’ve departed from Lutheran traditional practice - abandonment of orthodoxy isn’t exactly a WELS trademark.

Removing hymns because they use the deuteros would be silly. I have just never heard them read or taught in church. I only been Lutheran about a year though.

 

[steido01]

Depends on the synod. While WELS may not use them in liturgy, other synods do, in varying degrees. I’d like to see the LCMS use them in the lectionary.

A brief blog from Pastor Will Weedon
weedon.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-public-reading-of-apocrypha.html

And hymns such as “Now Thank We All Our God”, and “It Came Upon aMidnight CLear” have their roots in the DC books.

Jon

For the more visual folks, here’s Pastor Weedon in video form: youtube.com/watch?v=88X8OoV0118

Pastor Paul McCain also explained that the Lutheran Study Bible almost included these books, but to avoid confusion they were published in a separate binding: cyberbrethren.com/2008/07/27/the-apocrypha-%E2%80%94-missing-in-action-in-the-lutheran-church/

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Factually untrue. St. Jerome was the first to label them with the term “Apocrypha.”

That’s your opinion to history. The fact is St. Jerome never has the authority to label any of the canonized books as Apocrypha.

The facts prove, although St. Jerome expressed his professional opinions of the Deutero books, he never exercised an authority that was never his to do, which Luther left himself and named them Apocrypha when Protestantism followed the man.

No one followed St. Jerome’s opinion of the Deutero books. Fact is St. Jerome included them in his Vulgate (as per the existing canon of scripture ) as inspired of God discredits your opinion from the result of the historical fact.

The difference is St. Jerome enters an opinion that went to the way side. Luther’s opinion of the Deutero books as Apocrypha remained within Protestantism who followed the man.

Peace be with you

 

[steido01]

That’s your opinion to history. The fact is St. Jerome never has the authority to label any of the canonized books as Apocrypha.

The facts prove, although St. Jerome expressed his professional opinions of the Deutero books, he never exercised an authority that was never his to do, which Luther left himself and named them Apocrypha when Protestantism followed the man.

No one followed St. Jerome’s opinion of the Deutero books. Fact is St. Jerome included them in his Vulgate (as per the existing canon of scripture ) as inspired of God discredits your opinion from the result of the historical fact.

The difference is St. Jerome enters an opinion that went to the way side. Luther’s opinion of the Deutero books as Apocrypha remained within Protestantism who followed the man.

Peace be with you

Except for many great minds of the Roman Church, including Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus - who both would oppose Luther on other topics?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Depends on the synod. While WELS may not use them in liturgy, other synods do, in varying degrees. I’d like to see the LCMS use them in the lectionary.

A brief blog from Pastor Will Weedon
weedon.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-public-reading-of-apocrypha.html

And hymns such as “Now Thank We All Our God”, and “It Came Upon aMidnight CLear” have their roots in the DC books.

Jon

Jon-

What is your take on Michuta’s article in my OP?

Thanks.

 

[Per_Crucem]

That’s your opinion to history. The fact is St. Jerome never has the authority to label any of the canonized books as Apocrypha.

It’s not my opinion that he was the first to call them apocrypha lol. It’s historical fact.

No one followed St. Jerome’s opinion of the Deutero books. Fact is St. Jerome included them in his Vulgate (as per the existing canon of scripture ) as inspired of God discredits your opinion from the result of the historical fact.

Only if by “no one,” you mean St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Gregory the Great, Erasmus, Cajetan, et al.

 

[ericc]

Only if by “no one,” you mean St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Gregory the Great, Erasmus, Cajetan, et al.

You mean these folks actually went along with Jerome and used the Protestant Bible? Or you mean in spite of their personal opinions, they still went with the Vulgate? Which bible did these people used? I would think these Saints did not think they were bigger than the Church though.

 

[Per_Crucem]

You mean these folks actually went along with Jerome and used the Protestant Bible? Or you mean in spite of their personal opinions, they still went with the Vulgate? Which bible did these people used? I would think these Saints did not think they were bigger than the Church though.

Athanasius and Hilary were before the Vulgate.

As to those after the Vulgate…well, sure, they didn’t use a different translation because the Vulgate was the only one.

So it’s okay, in your view, to reject the DC books as Scriptural, as long as you don’t translate the Bible?

 

[spina1953]

Very interesting thread on these books. In other threads that talked about them all sorts of idea’s were given as to why these books are not a part of Protestantism. Guess it lead to in the past of some Protestants thinking that the Catholic Church added these books that were not part of the bible, or so it appears.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Athanasius and Hilary were before the Vulgate.

As to those after the Vulgate…well, sure, they didn’t use a different translation because the Vulgate was the only one.

So it’s okay, in your view, to reject the DC books as Scriptural, as long as you don’t translate the Bible?

Athanasius of Alexandria? He wouldn’t have used the Vulgate because he had the Septuagint and Alexandrian Canon.

Christopher Wordsworth on the Canon of Athanasius

The following paragraphs on the Canon of Athanasius and its significance are taken from A Church History by Chr. Wordsworth, D.D., Bishop of Lincoln, vol. II (second ed. New York: James Pott & Co., 1887), pp. 219-21.

---

In the spring of A.D. 367, Athanasius put forth a Festal Letter, 1 in which he says, “Since we have spoken of the heretics as dead, and of ourselves as having the divine Scriptures for eternal life; and since some may be beguiled from their simplicity by the wiles of certain men, and may read other writings which are called Apocryphal, 2 and which ought not to be mingled with the Scripture which is inspired by God, it seems good to me to set down those Books which are known by us to be divine.” 3 He then specifies the Books of the Old Testament, twenty-two in number, 4 and the Books of the New Testament. These are precisely the same as in our own Canon of Scripture. He designates the Epistle to the Hebrews as an Epistle of St. Paul. “These,” he adds, “are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsteth may be filled with their oracles. In these alone is the doctrine of piety preached; let no one add to them, or take anything from them.”
The Scriptural Canon of Athanasius corresponds with that of the Council of Laodicea (Canon 6o), with the exception of the Apocalypse, which Athanasius specifies as a work of St. John, but which is not mentioned by the Council of Laodicea. He then adds that there is a third class of books, 5 not “indeed received into the Canon, but which our Fathers have decreed should be read by those who desire to be instructed in the words of piety. Such are the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the ‘doctrine,’ as they call it, ‘of the Apostles,’ and the Shepherd” (of Hermas).
This statement of Athanasius on the Canon of Holy Scripture is very important, coming as it does from one who had been about forty years a Bishop of the Church, and was in communion with all the faithful in the East and West. It may be said that it represents the judgment of the Church Catholic in the fourth century on the question, What Books are to be received as Canonical, i. e. as Divinely-inspired Scripture? And it justifies the course taken by the Church of England in this fundamental matter, in opposition to the Church of Rome, which in the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, on the 8th of April, 1546, affirmed that such books as Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees I. and II. are to be received as Canonical (i. e. as equally inspired with those of Moses and the Prophets, which our Lord received as such). Thus the Church of Rome does what Athanasius forbade, when he said, “Let no man add to these Canonical Books, or take anything from them.”

1. These “Festal Letters” were issued in accordance with a decree of the Nicene Council that the Bishop of Alexandria should put forth annually a pastoral encyclic to his own people and the Bishop of Rome, announcing the day on which Lent would begin and Easter would fall.
2. I.e. strictly so; not ecclesiastical, which are read in the Church, such as Tobit, Judith, &c. See Hooker, V. xx. 7.
3. Ed. Bened. p. 767.
4. On this mode of reckoning the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, and on this Catalogue of Athanasius, see Bishop Cosin, Scholastical History of the Canon, lvi. vol. iii. p. 57, ed. Oxf. 1849, and Dr. Westcott on the Canon, p. 520.
5. Which we call Apocryphal, but which would be more correctly termed Ecclesiastical, as read in the Church “for example of life and instruction of manners.” Art. VI. of the Church of England ; above, p. 203.

 

[SyroMalankara]

From his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367:
bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

1. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
2. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
3. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.
4. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon

“37. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, 2 which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, 3 which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, 4 which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
Of the New Testament there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, which was written by Luke; fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the apostle Peter, one of James, the brother of the Lord and an apostle, one of Jude, three of John, and the Revelation of John.
These are the books which the fathers have included in the canon; on which they would have us establish the declarations of our faith.
38. But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not “canonical” but “ecclesiastical” by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter. 7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named “apocrypha,” 8 which they would not have read in the churches.” (Exposition of the Creed)

 

[Per_Crucem]

Athanasius of Alexandria? He wouldn’t have used the Vulgate because he had the Septuagint and Alexandrian Canon.

Correct, Syro. What I meant was, he was before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation.

 

[Maryann_C]

My 10 year old son’s non-denom friend just asked me out of the blue why Catholics have all “those extra books in their Bible”! Will this misinformation ever go away?

Did you tell the young friend to ask their parents why they are missing books in their Bible?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

My 10 year old son’s non-denom friend just asked me out of the blue why Catholics have all “those extra books in their Bible”! Will this misinformation ever go away?

Probably on the same day that the claim “Luther removed the books” goes away.

 

[spina1953]

The rabbis knew of outside books outside the sacred collection and used by heretics and Samaritians. However, the term apocrypha that has come to designate the books being discussed derives from the Greek apokryphos, meaning hidden. Originally, the import of the term may have been complimentary in that the term was applied to sacred books whose contents were too exalted to be made available to the general public.

In protestant understanding apocrypha designate 15 works, all but one of which are Jewish in origin and found in the LXX. The reformers influenced by the Jewish canon of the OT, did not consider these books on par with the rest of Scriptures; so the custom arose of making the apocrypha a separate section in the protestant Bible, or sometimes even of omitting them entirely.

To Catholic’s the term apocrypha as a term has come to designate ancient Jewish or Christian books pretending to be from the Biblical period. It seems to me that while many of the early Church Fathers questioned these and other books they were nevertheless accepted. None of the Early Church Fathers while questioning these book thought to go against the Churches understanding that they are inspired. Luther was the first I think who decided that these books as well as some others were not inspired so therefore thought that they could be removed. This of course led others (Reformers) to consider these books as uninspired and not worthy of being used for instruction teaching etc. it was the publishers who I think decided to remove them from the Bibles they were publishing as a cost cutting thing. There are many as I have spoke to some who tent to think that we Catholic’s have added books to the Bible and that only they have the true Bible in all of its contents. Yet, these books were used in the Catholic Church since nearly the beginning of Christianity.

 

[JRKH]

Did you tell the young friend to ask their parents why they are missing books in their Bible?

 

[pablope]

It’s not my opinion that he was the first to call them apocrypha lol. It’s historical fact.

Only if by “no one,” you mean St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Gregory the Great, Erasmus, Cajetan, et al.

Well, why don’t you provide actual quotes or something from those saints you cited above that they agreed with St. Jerome’s opinion.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Well, why don’t you provide actual quotes or something from those saints you cited above that they agreed with St. Jerome’s opinion.

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” Gregory.

“Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven…And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the frirst and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark” John of Damascus

Those are a couple.

 

[mayihelp2]

Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books – Short Answer
By Gary Michuta
catholic-convert.com/blog/2014/04/30/why-protestants-reject-7-books-of-the-bible-the-short-answer/

The short answer is this:, Protestantism really doesn’t have a historical leg to stand on in regards to their OT canon.

all though i like reading some of the “historical facts–”

this exersize – seems to dwell in the arena that saidn paul said to timithy – advoid stupid and dumb arguments–

The most important – concanal writings – are the ones that get you “baptised” in the Holy spirit-- meaning that in 1john 2:27 –

1 John 2:27 - Bible Gateway

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things …

fortuitously i know people and have been taught how to hear the voice on the Holy Spirit–

meaning my personal relationship with Jesus is established with mark 16:15-20

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: they will function in the 9 gifts of the spirit-- and including dream s and visions-

in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;

18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

the early CHURCH FATHERS-- also believed that the

1. the earth was flat
2. the earth was the center of the universe
3. that the universe rotated around the earth
4. the earth was stationary and stood still
5. and what were the stars?

so it is obviously a case that they could make them selves believe any thing that was error

you guys on this forum-- can’t even-- get your head around "praying in tongues- and doing the interpretation-

and you think you can understand – the history of religious canon?

as an EVANGELICAL Catholic-- who functions- as the Lord gives me direction-

you guys obviously get lost in “mental assent” and ego gratification