Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books

[Per_Crucem]

And seems to say, by this way, one can understand the decision at Carthage and by Augustine.

It isn’t my contention that the DC books are not Scriptural, pablope. I’m quite comfortable agreeing with the majority of Christian history that they are (and that includes the first generation of Lutherans). I believe Luther’s opinion is flat out wrong. However, that doesn’t mean I think his opinion is revolutionary. The fact is, he wasn’t doing anything new by his opinions. They were shared by some of the brightest theological minds in church history.

In addition, the DCs have always been used differently than the other OT books. Even calling them "deutero"canonical acknowledges as much.

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think most protestants have an articulated reason. Its just, that’s the bible they first read and therefore they trust it. Many do not seem to be aware there has never been any consensus as to the exact contents of the scripture, that it’s history is very contentious and far from settled.

Very well put. When one is raised with a certain canon AND with a strong foundation in “Bible Alone” it is very likely that they will not look kindly on anything outside of that.
It really takes some careful and patient discussion to help them see what you explain here.
It’s one of the reasons I will point out to “Bible Alone” protestants that East and West never did quite fully agree on the canon, yet the schism was not over this matter.

I think the more sophisticated try to argue from Judaism, that the canon at the time of Jesus for the Jews was like how the protestants and modern Jews have it, but I find explanations like that wanting when it is not at all clear if there was a canon in an exact form as it was.

I think the best argument going for the protestant is that most of the books included in the Orthodox, Catholic and Oriental canons of scripture are highly disputed and many of the early lists leave them out, therefore, to be safe, we leave them out of the bible. I do not know how a protestant can positively deny the wisdom of Solomon being scripture and yet affirm the 3 john as scripture by any objective standard.

Agreed - and yet the difficulty for the protestant in using such an argument is that none of the Early Churches produced a 66 book canon. In arguing the completeness and sufficiency of Scripture, the protestant runs into the problem of “which bible” (canon) is the true and complete word of God?
As you say earlier, many have no idea of this variation in the canons or the history of how these developed.
And often times trying to explain it to them can feel very threatening to their theology. So one needs to tread carefully.

We really only have tradition to rely upon in this regard.

OOoooo - - - There’s that word.

Anyway - thanks for a wonderful post on the subject.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

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

Thanks.

Hi Randy,
Sorry for the late nature of my response.
You quoted Mr. Michuta as saying:

The short answer is this: When Luther was cornered in a debate over Purgatory, his opponent, Johann Eck, cited 2 Maccabees against Luther’s position. Luther was forced to say that Second Maccabees could not be allowed in the debate because it wasn’t canonical. Later in the debate, Luther appealed to St. Jerome for rejecting Maccabees (the councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Florence all included Macabees as canonical Scripture).

By appealing to Jerome, he also rejected all the other books Jerome rejected (Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Daniel 13, and sections of Esther).

I don’t think Luther (other protestants are irrelevant to this because their communions make their own determinations on the canon of scripture) was cornered into rejecting all the DC books simply because St. Jerome did. In his prefaces he more often references the Hebrew OT than he does Jerome. Further, the precedent of separating was long in place, considering the western Church’s acceptance of most of the Septuagint, while rejecting other parts.

Finally, implied here is that Luther “rejected” the DC’s because he was opposed to Purgatory. I believe this to be incorrect. Instead, he rejected Purgatory (intermediate state/place as taught then) as a doctrine because it is not supported explicitly in the homologoumena.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In addition, the DCs have always been used differently than the other OT books. Even calling them "deutero"canonical acknowledges as much.

Duetero because the books came to us in the second language Greek.

The reason the whole of the LXX (Greek text) of the bible is not called Deutero, because the Hebrew counterparts were known.

The Dead sea scrolls are said to have found the Hebrew counter parts.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem;11969176:

In addition, the DCs have always been used differently than the other OT books. Even calling them "deutero"canonical acknowledges as much.

Duetero

because the books came to us in the second language Greek.

The reason the whole of the LXX (Greek text) of the bible is not called Deutero, because the Hebrew counterparts were known.

The Dead sea scrolls are said to have found the Hebrew counter parts.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were written in Greek.

 

[rbarcia]

There are over 300 deutero quotes and references in the New Testament scriptures.

Can you post a link to this?

 

[marywarfield]

Gabriel of 12;11970044:

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were written in Greek.

Actually it does. They are a double whammy. First not
all Jews believed in them even though as you pointed
out Jesus as a very observant Jew kept Hannukah
(a fact attesting to their authority right there) and
their Hebrew counterparts were NOT available.

 

[marywarfield]

Again here is the problem for me.
I would not expect the Jews or Islam to fully accept
the deuteros because they do not accept Christ
as God. Not at all. So do not accept Christ as the
fulfillment of Gods Word in the OT.
Understandable.
What is NOT understandable is if the Lord
was observant of that which is in the Deutero
why would Protestants not accept the Deutero?
It is the Protestants after all that gave us the nifty
bumper sticker “What Would Jesus Do?”. Well
obviously Jesus kept the feasts of the Deutero.

And nowhere did He give us any indication that
we should reject the Deutero.

This is an excellent article on the important FACT of WHY
Jesus kept Hannukah. Remember Hannukah was a brand new feast only
in existence for two centuries. Jesus kept it because again He was
the fulfillment of 1 and 2 Maccabees.
catholicnotebook.blogspot.com/2009/12/hanukkah-and-jesus.html?m=1

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem;11970113:

Actually it does. They are a double whammy. First not
all Jews believed in them even though as you pointed
out Jesus as a very observant Jew kept Hannukah
(a fact attesting to their authority right there) and
their Hebrew counterparts were NOT available.

No, it doesn’t. It refers to the fact that they were disputed. The non-DC books are protocanonical. Please see Catholic sources on this ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

The protocanonical books are not only in Hebrew, as some are written in Aramaic. Therefore, it’s not protocanon because it’s written in Hebrew and the DC deuterocanon because they are Greek. They are deuterocanon because they are “second canon.”

 

[marywarfield]

marywarfield;11970230:

No, it doesn’t. It refers to the fact that they were disputed. The non-DC books are protocanonical. Please see Catholic sources on this ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

The protocanonical books are not only in Hebrew, as some are written in Aramaic. Therefore, it’s not protocanon because it’s written in Hebrew and the DC deuterocanon because they are Greek. They are deuterocanon because they are “second canon.”

No we do not have a “second canon” we only have
one, remember? It is Lutherans and Protestants
that have a second canon not Catholics.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

It should be noted that protocanonical and deuterocanonical are modern terms, not having been used before the sixteenth century. As they are of cumbersome length, the latter (being frequently used in this article) will be often found in the abbreviated form deutero."

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem;11970378:

No we do not have a “second canon” we only have
one, remember? It is Lutherans and Protestants
that have a second canon not Catholics.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, “first”) is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, “second”) are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

It should be noted that protocanonical and deuterocanonical are modern terms, not having been used before the sixteenth century. As they are of cumbersome length, the latter (being frequently used in this article) will be often found in the abbreviated form deutero."

But I am not saying that the term deuterocanonical connotes, in Catholic theology, that the DC’s are of lesser importance. What I am saying is that it has absolutely nothing to do with it being written in Greek as a “second language.” The term deuterocanon means second canon.

 

[marywarfield]

Another excellent article. Something I never realized.

Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn’t see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them “You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees”? Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn’t try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn’t mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees’ whittled-down canon.

When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. That’s why Christ and the Apostles didn’t hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn’t imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture — the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek — which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It’s a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns “teaching as doctrines human traditions.” This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly “adding” to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the “merely human works” of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

But there’s the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly “added” by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren’t the deuterocanonical books in today’s Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community.
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

 

[marywarfield]

marywarfield;11970404:

But I am not saying that the term deuterocanonical connotes, in Catholic theology, that the DC’s are of lesser importance. What I am saying is that it has absolutely nothing to do with it being written in Greek as a “second language.” The term deuterocanon means second canon.

The first Septaugint was in Greek was it not? We’re
the deuteros a part of that? Yes. Were they accepted
in that first Greek? Yes.
So how can you say it has nothing to do with it?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem;11970409:

The first Septaugint was in Greek was it not? We’re
the deuteros a part of that? Yes. Were they accepted
in that first Greek? Yes.
So how can you say it has nothing to do with it?

Because the term deuterocanon does not have to do with it being written in Greek. Gabriel made the claim that it is called deuterocanon because it was written in Greek as a second (deutero) language. That’s false. I am discussing etymology of terms here.

 

[marywarfield]

marywarfield;11970460:

Because the term deuterocanon does not have to do with it being written in Greek. Gabriel made the claim that it is called deuterocanon because it was written in Greek as a second (deutero) language. That’s false. I am discussing etymology of terms here.

Understood.

My point is Deutero and proto are terms originating
in Luther’s Reformation five hundred years ago.
And-
The most widely read Bible in early years included
the entire Septaugint (with deuteros) and it was in Greek
and difficulties began when it was to be translated out
of Greek.
The difficulty originally was NOT that the
deuteros were considered uninspired. They most
definitely were by everyone except those Jews who
also rejected Christ as Messiah. Those Jews who DID
accept Christ as Messiah accepted the ENTIRE Septaugint.

 

[rcwitness]

There are over 300 deutero quotes and references in the New Testament scriptures.

Can you post a link to this?

This is Jimmy Akin’s list of NT references to
Deutero Canon and/or Septaugint.

cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem;11970526:

Understood.

My point is Deutero and proto are terms originating
in Luther’s Reformation five hundred years ago.
And-

Yes and no. Of those earlier Protestants who followed Jerome, the term Apocrypha was favored (as that is how Jerome referred to them). Deuterocanonical is not a Protestant term, but a Catholic one, ISTM. The Eastern churches referred to them as antiligomenae.

The most widely read Bible in early years included
the entire Septaugint (with deuteros) and it was in Greek
and difficulties began when it was to be translated out
of Greek.
The difficulty originally was NOT that the
deuteros were considered uninspired. They most
definitely were by everyone except those Jews who
also rejected Christ as Messiah. Those Jews who DID
accept Christ as Messiah accepted the ENTIRE Septaugint.

If you’re referring to the early period after Christ, that’s partly true. The fact though is that Jews in Palestine, especially those around Jerusalem (i.e., the Pharisees) never accepted the Septuagint, because it was Hellenistic. Therefore, they didn’t accept them as inspired. It would have been more readily used in outlying areas that had a lot of Gentile influence (i.e., Galilee).

There were many in the early church, and through to the Reformation, in the western church that disputed the DC books as canonical. This is just historical fact. I believe that the earlier councils were correct to affirm the inspiration of the Septuagint documents. That doesn’t mean that they were without controversy, however.

 

[spina1953]

Another excellent article. Something I never realized.

Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn’t see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them “You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees”? Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn’t try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn’t mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees’ whittled-down canon.

When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. That’s why Christ and the Apostles didn’t hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn’t imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture — the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek — which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It’s a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns “teaching as doctrines human traditions.” This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly “adding” to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the “merely human works” of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

But there’s the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly “added” by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren’t the deuterocanonical books in today’s Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community.
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

Hi marywarfield: Great post and I had read that many times over the years on the history of Christianity. I also understood from reading history that the Apostles used the Septuagint and that was one reason why the Church used it and not the Hebrew OT version.

 

[ByzantineHeart]

This subject has long fascinated me, but my knowledge is limited, so bear with me.

So if the deuterocanonicals come from the LXX, and Christ himself quoted the LXX, is it safe to say that today’s Catholic Bible translations use the LXX as opposed to the Masoretic OT? Isn’t the Vulgate translated from the Septuagint?

And secondly, maybe a little off topic but along the same lines, why does the Catholic church reject Septuagint books that Orthodox churches accept, like 3 Maccabees and Jubilees?

I wonder what King James only folks would think if they knew the original 1611 version had the 7 Catholic deuteros.

 

[marywarfield]

This subject has long fascinated me, but my knowledge is limited, so bear with me.

So if the deuterocanonicals come from the LXX, and Christ himself quoted the LXX, is it safe to say that today’s Catholic Bible translations use the LXX as opposed to the Masoretic OT? Isn’t the Vulgate translated from the Septuagint?

And secondly, maybe a little off topic but along the same lines, why does the Catholic church reject Septuagint books that Orthodox churches accept, like 3 Maccabees and Jubilees?

I wonder what King James only folks would think if they knew the original 1611 version had the 7 Catholic deuteros.

Orthodox- that’s interesting and I don’t know.

One think about Maccabees though, 1 and 2, that gets lost is it’s significance
as testimony to Christ. The moment He walked into that Temple at Dedications/Hannukah
was a statement to all as to His real identity.

Most people believe Maccabees is only useful for supporting the intercession
of the saints and Purgatory but that maybe the fault of Eck and Luther.
It is too bad the true significance in those books is ignored.
very significant.