Why some books are not included into the Non-Catholic Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VacareDeo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VacareDeo

Guest
To all my beloved brothers and sisters,

I wanted to know more about why some books are not included in the Non-Catholic Bible ?

Apocrypha:
  1. 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
  2. 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
  3. Tobit
  4. Judith (“Judeth” in Geneva)
  5. Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
  6. Wisdom
  7. Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
  8. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (“Jeremiah” in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
  9. Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
  10. Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
  11. The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
  12. Prayer of Manasses (Daniel)
  13. 1 Maccabees
  14. 2 Maccabees
Any help and comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
 
I think these are the deuterocannonical books. When I was in the Episcopal church they were called the Apocrypha.

The reason has to do with the Protestant Reformation.
 
Yes, it is Deuterocanonical books.

Maybe the other Christian denominational church does not find it worthy to be used as teaching ?
 
The books were removed in the later half of the 19th Century under the pressure of the Presbyterian Church. They got published separately as the Apocrypha from then on.

It really was not that long ago.
 
The British and Foreign Bible Society and its allied institutions were established to circulate the Holy Scriptures. Their funds were used to print Bibles which included the deuterocanonicals. Some folks complained about the use of such funds for the printing of the Apocrypha part of the Bible. The Committee met and agreed and henceforth, the deuterocanonicals were omitted.




The above is the practical explanation why the deuterocanonicals are not printed together with the Protestant Bible.

But as to WHY and HOW such books were determined to be excluded from the Bible, I have never ever able to track it down. There was no Protestant Church Council equivalent that has been authorized to do that. No one has claim divine inspiration for this surgery either. Certain people gives their own reason why such and such a book should not be in there, but largely that is self opinionated with no historical support. Each of the reformers have their own POV but I couldn’t definitely track it to any particular event that vetted the process and came into finalization.
 
ericc said:
But as to WHY and HOW such books were determined to be excluded from the Bible, I have never ever able to track it down. There was no Protestant Church Council equivalent that has been authorized to do that. No one has claim divine inspiration for this surgery either. Certain people gives their own reason why such and such a book should not be in there, but largely that is self opinionated with no historical support. Each of the reformers have their own POV but I couldn’t definitely track it to any particular event that vetted the process and came into finalization.
Click to expand...
The blunt answer is that these books contained information that directly contradicted Martin Luther’s own interpretation of scripture and what he personally believed to be correct. He relegated them to a lesser status while leaving them intact, though separated, in his breakdrown of the Bible. They were then removed entirely by King James when he compiled his edition.

Those books are not in the Protestant Bible because one scrupulous monk and one adulterous king decided that they knew better than God.
 
Last edited:
In addition to the other explanations that have already been given on this thread, there is one further consideration to which Luther attached great importance, namely that none of these books are included in the Jewish canon. If you are interested in following up this angle, you could try the online Jewish Encyclopedia. It’s very old – it’s the 1906 edition – but the entry for “Bible Canon” (link below) goes into considerable detail about the history of the selection process. What it doesn’t tell us, of course, is what Luther’s reasons were for following the Jewish lead and excluding the same books from his German translation of the OT.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3259-bible-canon 2
 
So I guess, that’s why even the updated Catholic Didache bible is not including the Apocrypha section anymore due to patents or some rights owned by the other Denominations ?
 
Wow, that’s a good source of history that you got there.

Yes, it is baffling most if not all people that I know in the Churches in various denomination as to why this section of the Bible is not even used or read in the daily reading schedule or in the Church.
 
lol, yes, that could be the most logical reason for the exclusion of the books from the general public Bible.

Now, the Oxford publisher seems to have the most complete edition of the Bible: hxxps://www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/019027607X

Not even from the Catholic edition unfortunately (like Didache bible).
 
Yes, that part is somehow remains mystery.

I guess from my own opinion is that the scripture in the Apocrypha was due to no hard evidence of the books being exist.
 
So far, I can see based on this website: hxxp://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm

The Orthodox Bible is the most complete compared with the other books.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top