Why the Apocrypha is not in the Bible

[scarlettstara]

The following is an argument against the validity of the Apocrypha that I found here: jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

I think this guy’s pretty bold, claiming that Catholics are not Christians, but how do you refute some of the things he says here?

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: “You have to keep the Bible in perspective.” Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God’s complete revelation for man.

**The Roman Catholic Apocrypha **
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

**Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion: **

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*

*A reader says: “Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13.”

**Why the Apocrypha Isn’t in the Bible. **

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I’m certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

**Basis for the doctrine of purgatory: **
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering…Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

**Salvation by works: **
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

**Magic: **
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish…and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

 

[ArAnMike]

Number 1, he needs to do a bit more research. The Council of Trent only reinforced the books of the Bible, because Martin Luther rejected those books in the Apocrypha. He did this because of the doctrines listed further in the article. The Council of Rome (382) declared the books of the Bible, which can be found as Wikipedia
( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome ).
The Church teaches that the Bible is equal to Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. The Bible nowhere says that it is the only source of truth. (2 Timothy 3:14–17, 1:13-14, 2:2). You can go here for more information,
catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp .

It is true that we have to keep the Bible in perspective. We have to keep interpretation with the other two legs of Catholic teaching, lest we fall to false doctrine (2 Peter). The question now becomes which denomination teaches the truth the same today as it did 2000 years ago.

 

[jemfinch]

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

So Matthew, originally written in Aramaic, even though we now have it in Greek – Matthew is just fine, but the deuterocanonicals aren’t?

1. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.

Neither did many of the protocanonical writers.

1. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

And, incidentally, long after they rejected the Messiah, as well. Why should those who rejected the Messiah be trusted with the determination of the Christian Old Testament canon?

1. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I’m certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).

If he’s not talking about the Catholic Church during the first four centuries, then he should provide historical evidence for this other Church that I’ve never heard of.

1. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

These are the same sort of accusations made against the protocanonical Scriptures by atheists and other non-Christians. They have answers.

1. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

You simply can’t use doctrine derived solely from Scripture to determine the canon. You can’t say “The apocrypha include doctrines at variance with the protocanonicals” unless you’ve already determined that the apocrypha are not canonical.

Jeremy

 

[scarlettstara]

Not one of the writers of these books claimed to be inspired. In fact, 1 Maccabees 9:27 actually says “there hasn’t been a prophet in Israel for some time.” (See also 1 Maccabees 4:46; 14:41.) This is in sharp contrast to the rest of the Old Testament. You cannot read through the Old Testament without coming across “thus says the Lord” or “the Lord spoke unto me saying” everywhere - over 3000 times!

These books abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies, such as “Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the Assyrians at Nineveh” (Judith). The book of Baruch claims to be written by the secretary of the prophet Jeremiah (7th century B.C.), but he quotes from the prophet Daniel (who wrote in the 6th century B.C. – 70 to 80 years after Baruch’s death).

They teach doctrines and foster practices which are in disagreement with the 66 books that both Roman Catholics and Protestants recognize as Scriptural. The Apocryphal books contain assertions that “almsgiving will atone for sin” (Tobit), an angel can have a human father (Tobit), and the pre-existence of souls (Wisdom 8:19,20).

Jesus and the apostles quoted hundreds of times from the Old Testament, but they never quoted from any of the books of the Apocrypha. Jesus affirmed the prevailing Jewish view that the Old Testament was made up of “the law, the prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44), which was the common manner of referring to the three-fold division of the 39 books of the Old Testament.

Josephus, the Jewish historian (AD 37-100), explicitly excludes the Apocrypha from the inspired books of the Old Testament. In giving the view of Jewish people he quite explicitly says: “From Artaxerxes until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased” (Josephus writing in Against Apion i. 8.41,42). In this statement Josephus commits himself to a very precise date for the closing of the Old Testament canon (Artaxerxes reigned from 465 to 425 BC) and says that nothing inspired was written after that date, because God ceased to speak through prophets to His people.

This is a very crucial point. Paul wrote in Romans 3:2, “To the Jew was entrusted the keeping of God’s oracles” and again in Romans 9:4 he said that the Jewish people “received the law… and the promises.” If prior to the coming of the Messiah, Jewish people were entrusted with God’s Word, God’s law, and God’s promises and they did not recognize the Apocrypha as inspired, then on what basis can we include these extra writings as part of God’s Word?

Unlike the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament, there was never uniform agreement in the Christian church concerning the Apocrypha.

In later centuries, Roman Catholics will appeal to the inclusion of the Apocryphal books in the Vulgate as the reason for their acceptance as Scripture, but the translator of the Vulgate did not view them as having any divine origin!

There is even disagreement among the bishops of Rome. Pope Innocent I, sent a letter in 405 to a Gallican bishop. In this letter he reaffirmed the canon and it contains all the deuterocanonical books, without any distinction from the rest of the Old Testament. But Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), in his commentaries on Job (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.), expressly wrote “First Maccabees is not canonical.”

The final and official decision to include the deuterocanonical books was quite late and motivated by a desire to safeguard certain doctrines that the Roman Catholic Church had come to practice.

It was not until the Council of Florence (1439-43) that the pope made a pronouncement (a papal bull) on the Apocrypha - he included the deuterocanonical books in his list of Old Testament Scriptures.

Luther and the Reformers should not just be viewed as outsiders. They were originally part of the church. When they rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha, they were often speaking as priests, doctors, and scholars still within the church. They believed that in doing so they were returning to the Jewish view of the canon, which Jesus shared (Luke 24:44).

The disagreement over the Apocrypha was wide spread and included even the members of the Council of Trent which met to combat the Protestant Reformation. After Luther’s departure from the church, the council of Trent issued a definitive statement on the contents of the Bible. This was the first time that a general council of the church made the Apocrypha an absolute article of faith and confirmed it by anathema. On April 8, 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15 with 16 abstentions, a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) was issued and the Apocryphal books received full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church. Passages in the Apocrypha could be used to buttress doctrines like purgatory (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), praying to saints, and salvation by almsgiving (Ecclesiasticus 3:30).

 

[Verbum]

Hi Scarlett__,

We don’t believe in the Bible because of internal criteria, in other words, because of things we find in the Bible. We believe in the Bible, because it was handed down to us by the apostles as the word of God. And it just so happens that the apostles used the Septuagint version of the Bible to evangelize the Mediterranean world. This version of the Bible contains the Deuterocanonical books, which you qualify as “apocrypha”. That is why they are part of the Bible. Luther and the Protestants took them out; that was the work of men, not of God.

Verbum

 

[Schabel]

Number 1, he needs to do a bit more research. The Council of Trent only reinforced the books of the Bible, because Martin Luther rejected those books in the Apocrypha. He did this because of the doctrines listed further in the article. The Council of Rome (382) declared the books of the Bible, which can be found as Wikipedia
( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome ).

This is true. The deuterocanonicals were included in the canon from 385 on, ever since a canon was decided, and included in most lists long before this.

There was another reason that Trent finally “closed” the canon.
While the Church had always maintained that public revelation ended at the time of the death of the last Apostle, the possibility remained that we could discover a previously “lost” writing from, say, Paul (such as his letter to the Corinthians that is mentioned in 1Cor 5:9, but not extant), which should be considered inspired. Trent essentially declared that there was no possibility of sufficiently validating such a discovery, if it were ever to take place.

 

[scarlettstara]

Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the Assyrians at Nineveh" (Judith). The book of Baruch claims to be written by the secretary of the prophet Jeremiah (7th century B.C.), but he quotes from the prophet Daniel (who wrote in the 6th century B.C. – 70 to 80 years after Baruch’s death).

Do the deuterocanonicals really contain historical errors, as the guy says in the above quote?

 

[stignatius]

Do the deuterocanonicals really contain historical errors, as the guy says in the above quote?

Here is a complete response to the article:
geocities.com/hammer348/apocrypha.html

Also read this:
catholicapologetics.net/jil.htm

Once again, you can see how easily it falls apart

 

[Sabda]

Umm, has he ever studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and if he has can he please explain the fact that they include all the books with the only exception being the book of Esther?
The books of the New Testament were disbuted for several hundred years after they were wrote. Revelation was one of the most disbuted books in Scripture. The fact is there were several New Testament books that were disbuted and several books that are not in the New Testament that were considered a part of Scripture. The Old Testament wasn’t so much the issue as the New Testament was.

There were several councils in the late 300s that decided the canon. What I find interesting is that you will see many of these people who deny the fact that the deuterocanonicals are a part of Scripture site those same councils as the ones who authoritatively decided the canon but they will not give the actual list of what those councils actually considered scripture.

Those councils btw are:
The Council of Rome (Decree of Damasus) in 382

The Council of Hippo in 393

The Council of Carthage in 397 and 419
Scroll down to canon 24.

There is also a Letter by Pope Innocence I to Bishop of Toulouse in 405

As far as Jerome’s comment. He accepted the authority of the councils once they decided the canon. I don’t remember were the quote is maybe someone else knows which letter he wrote it in and would be kind enough to post it for us.

BTW Ken Collins is a Protestant and he give an interesting view on this.

This site gives a list of major Church pronouncements on the Bible

Here is a good site that sums all this up.

Also as far as the claim that Jesus and the Apostles did not quote directly from the deuterocanonicals, how do you explain this passage in Mark 15:34?

And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

He is quoting from Scripture here. In fact this is the from the second line of Psalm 22!

My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?

Read the whole Psalm. You will find a number of passages in there that deal directly with Jesus’ Passion! Jesus and the apostles quoted from the deuterocanonicals in the same manner. Just because they didn’t say Scripture says or Maccabees says doesn’t mean they were not quoting from the deuterocanonicals. Check out Scripture Catholic for a list of quotes

William Jurgens has a 3 volume set on the early fathers. He includes some of these and they list the canon that we as Catholics use.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus and the apostles quoted hundreds of times from the Old Testament, but they never quoted from any of the books of the Apocrypha. Jesus affirmed the prevailing Jewish view that the Old Testament was made up of “the law, the prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44), which was the common manner of referring to the three-fold division of the 39 books of the Old Testament.

Jesus and the Apostles did quote from the Deuterocanonicals.

They also quoted from other books that were not in the Bible. Jude refers to the Apocalypse (?) of Moses, and the Book of Enoch.

Other books that are canonical are never quoted from in the New Testament.

It’s also interesting to note, Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek Translated Scriptures almost exclusively. The Septuagint included the Deuterocanonicals, including a few others.

 

[NotWorthy]

Think about this.

The SAME council that rejected Jesus and all of his teachings (Jamnia 90AD) rejected the Deuterocanonicals. **This **is the council that the author in the OP trusts to determine the Old Testament Canon???

While your contemplating…

The SAME council that the Holy Spirit guided to choose the 27 books of the New Testament (among the 110!!! that were being considered) that ALL Christians agree on (well, all except for Luther ) was then abandoned by the Holy Spirit when deciding the Old Testament?

REALLY!?!?!?

 

[stignatius]

Think about this.

The SAME council that rejected Jesus and all of his teachings (Jamnia 90AD) rejected the Deuterocanonicals. **This **is the council that the author in the OP trusts to determine the Old Testament Canon???

While your contemplating…

The SAME council that the Holy Spirit guided to choose the 27 books of the New Testament (among the 110!!! that were being considered) that ALL Christians agree on (well, all except for Luther ) was then abandoned by the Holy Spirit when deciding the Old Testament?

REALLY!?!?!?

Yup, I get the same feeling when “Christians” who don’t believe that Christ is God attempt to use the Bible to prove their beliefs. The fact that the doctrine of Christ being God was formally defined before the Canon of the Bible was decided really destroys their arguments

 

[scarlettstara]

Thank you for all the replies. They really help!

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)

The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife’s iniquity.

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)

And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)

And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)

Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus

“From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.” … “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine…”(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)

The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. “The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. ‘The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.’” (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])

Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.

Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.

The terms “protocanonical” and “deuterocanonical” are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.

Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as “the infallible and authentic Bible.” Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the “Apocrypha” (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.

Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – “Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated” (the Septuagint)

The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century

Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)

Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said “These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical.”

bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

 

[Vaclav]

I’ll help as best I can.

So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic.

There is no “now” to it. The “Apocrypha” and The Bible are identical. I’m not sure why the author separates them.

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

That is simply untrue. The Jewish Pharisees (I’m not sure what happened to the Sadduccees and the Essenes) who survived the Roman onslaught and went to regroup used Hebrew as one of their criteria, but not the only one. Some of the books were indeed written in Hebrew, but failed to meet another of the criteria (for example the text had to have been written in Palestine and within a certain time period).

1. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Saint Paul probably had no idea that some of his letters to other churches would later be included in a Sacred Text with each sentence scrutinised two millennia later. They Holy Spirit may have known that, but Paul was probably just doing his duty in guiding his brothers in Christ.

1. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The Alexandrian Canon was very popular as was the Palestinian Canon during Christ’s time. Their might be technical truth in this statement, but only because no official canon was claimed by the Jewish people.

The Jewish people (and some Americans still have problems understanding this today) don’t all believe the exact same thing. Clearly the Sadduccees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Samaritans did not agree on the same religious principles.

After the slaughter by the Romans it was likely much easier to reach consensus and would have only been natural for the Jewish people to “circle the wagons” so to speak.

1. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I’m certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).

“Were not permitted” makes no sense here because there was no accepted Biblical canon until the end of the 4th century. Indeed, many books were accepted in different versions of what theologians considered worthy books. Much of the Apostolic Fathers’ writings, such as 1 Clement and The Martyrdom of Polycarp would be included with the Catholic Epistles. The Protoevangelion of James was also a very popular book for New Testament inclusion.

I have no idea what church existed outside of Catholicism prior to the 4th Century. There were gnostics and zoaroastrians, but I doubt they cared much about Biblical canon.

1. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

To be honest, and others here may feel free to correct me, I really don’t see what the great fuss is over except for 2 Maccabees. Sirach is one of my favourites since I converted and is similar to Proverbs and all around a good book on ethical Jewish living. Tobit reminds me of Job in many ways, Judith is an heroic tale much like Esther. Baruch is a minor prophet.

The real issue is with Maccabees. 1 Maccabees was written in Hebrew (which refutes #1 on the list). 2 Maccabees was written in Greek, notably by a very well-educated author. One of the issues here (concerning the “3 deaths”) might be that 2 Maccabees is not a chronological sequeal to 1 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees is more of a spiritual and theological supplement to the first.

1. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

How can the Bible include doctrine in variance with itself?

Sinless perfection? As in Pelagianism? That was an issue completely rejected as heretical by Catholicism, and was far more of a problem for some early Protestant faiths.

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

No. Some books in the Protestant Old Testament are not referred to either. Moreover, non-sacred works are referred to - does that mean we should include them in the Bible as well? This argument sounds powerful, but is really a paper tiger. There is nothing to it.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Think about this.

The SAME council that rejected Jesus and all of his teachings (Jamnia 90AD) rejected the Deuterocanonicals. **This **is the council that the author in the OP trusts to determine the Old Testament Canon???

While your contemplating…

The SAME council that the Holy Spirit guided to choose the 27 books of the New Testament (among the 110!!! that were being considered) that ALL Christians agree on (well, all except for Luther ) was then abandoned by the Holy Spirit when deciding the Old Testament?

REALLY!?!?!?

Jamnia was not a council and had no authority regarding the Jewish Canon.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the “council” in Jabneh in 90 was not even an “official” council with binding authority to make such a decision:

“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).

Here is a good article from Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

 

[NotWorthy]

I understand it was in the 1400’s that the Jews finally established an official Canon. The council of Jamnia did reject certain books, like maybe 27 or so books that later made it into the Christian New Testament, but the biggest question is what was their authority and how binding was it on Jews around the world.

I understand the Ethiopian Jews, for example, follow an OT canon identical (or at least similar) to ours.

 

[mark_a]

Reinventing the wheel requires something be changed. Why shouldn’t Luther not challenge the books that had from time to time been in dispute?

I also find it interesting that the Church found that, while the bible must contain these deutero’s, it did not limit the bible to 73 books. Some Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have more books in their bibles.

stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm
provides some insight to what the Orthodox thought of Marty’s proposed aliance with the Orthodox.

 

[Vaclav]

Why shouldn’t Luther not challenge the books that had from time to time been in dispute?

In some ways, I think Luther had fair cause to dispute some of the books. Keep in mind that he did not subscribe to the fundamentalist notions of the Bible. He questioned Esther, a book that no modern Protestant would likely question. He also disliked James, Jude, and said that he found “no trace of the Holy Spirit” in Revelations.

I agree with him on the latter. Honestly, I do. I see the Apocalypse of John used to make a great deal of money and to lead so many people not only away from the Church, but also frighten a great number of people away from Christ.

The difference, I think, is that I know that the Magisterium and the Church knows what is right. Sometimes we must drop our arrogance and predispositions and have the courage to be obedient.

And Protestants should remember that Luther kept all of those books in his Bible in an appendix. It was only later that Protestant Bibles began deleting them altogether and no longer instructing their congregations to read them and that they were still of worth.