Why the Apocryphal Books Rejected as Scripture.

[Always in His Presence]

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture
2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture
3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture
4. The Books Of The Apocrypha Were Written During The Silent Years
5. The Septuagint Translation Proves Nothing

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.​

6. There Is No Evidence The Apocrypha Was In Septuagint At The Time Of Christ
7. There Is No Evidence Of A Greater Alexandrian Canon
8. They Are Not On The Early Canonical Lists
9. They Were Rejected By Most Church Leaders
10. There Are Other Books Apart From The Apocrypha That Are Cited As Scripture By Some Church Fathers
11. The Early Greek Manuscripts Are Not Decisive

The Books Have A Different Order And Content​

In the three most important Greek manuscripts the order and the contents of the books are different.​

12. The Apocrypha Is Not A Well-Defined Unit
13. The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive

The fact that the councils of Hippo and Carthage accepted the canonical status of the Apocrypha is not decisive. First, they were not larger more representative councils. In addition, these councils had no qualified Hebrew scholar in attendance. Basically the Apocrypha was canonized at these councils because of the influence of one person - Saint Augustine.​

There was one great Hebrew scholar among the Christian Church living in the era of Saint Augustine - Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate. Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.

We can start there:

​

​

 

[Always in His Presence]

The same cannot be said of early church fathers. They frequently paraphrased portions of the Apocrypha and even call the writer of 2 Esdras “another of the prophets” (Epistle of Barnabas 12:1). During Origen’s day, the Apocrypha became a normal part of the liturgy in church. But by the time Augustine and Jerome came on the scene, two opposing views emerged on these writings. Augustine argued for the canonicity of the Apocrypha, drawing from it frequently in his writings. Jerome, however, pushed back and distinguished between canonical and ecclesiastical texts. Canonical texts informed faith and practice, but ecclesiastical texts were to be read in the church solely for edification, not to construct doctrine. Ultimately, the Council of Carthage (AD 397) sided with Augustine, but the two views remained in the church until the Reformation.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Thirty-nine Articles (1571), article 6: “And the other Books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”

Belgic Confession (1561) 6: “The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.”

Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) 1.3: “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture
2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture
3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture
4. The Books Of The Apocrypha Were Written During The Silent Years
5. The Septuagint Translation Proves Nothing

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.​

6. There Is No Evidence The Apocrypha Was In Septuagint At The Time Of Christ
7. There Is No Evidence Of A Greater Alexandrian Canon
8. They Are Not On The Early Canonical Lists
9. They Were Rejected By Most Church Leaders
10. There Are Other Books Apart From The Apocrypha That Are Cited As Scripture By Some Church Fathers
11. The Early Greek Manuscripts Are Not Decisive

The Books Have A Different Order And Content​

In the three most important Greek manuscripts the order and the contents of the books are different.​

12. The Apocrypha Is Not A Well-Defined Unit
13. The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive

The fact that the councils of Hippo and Carthage accepted the canonical status of the Apocrypha is not decisive. First, they were not larger more representative councils. In addition, these councils had no qualified Hebrew scholar in attendance. Basically the Apocrypha was canonized at these councils because of the influence of one person - Saint Augustine.​

There was one great Hebrew scholar among the Christian Church living in the era of Saint Augustine - Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate. Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.

We can start there:

​

​

Nope. Those are post-facto justifications and nothing more. A good number of them are just inaccurate too.

Protestantism rejects seven canonical books {Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, first and second Maccabees, Baruch} and parts of Esther and parts of Daniel because <pause for effect> in the sixteenth century their leaders wanted to.

 

[Philip_B]

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture
2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture
3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture
4. The Books Of The Apocrypha Were Written During The Silent Years
5. The Septuagint Translation Proves Nothing

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.​

6. There Is No Evidence The Apocrypha Was In Septuagint At The Time Of Christ
7. There Is No Evidence Of A Greater Alexandrian Canon
8. They Are Not On The Early Canonical Lists
9. They Were Rejected By Most Church Leaders
10. There Are Other Books Apart From The Apocrypha That Are Cited As Scripture By Some Church Fathers
11. The Early Greek Manuscripts Are Not Decisive

The Books Have A Different Order And Content​

In the three most important Greek manuscripts the order and the contents of the books are different.​

12. The Apocrypha Is Not A Well-Defined Unit
13. The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive

The fact that the councils of Hippo and Carthage accepted the canonical status of the Apocrypha is not decisive. First, they were not larger more representative councils. In addition, these councils had no qualified Hebrew scholar in attendance. Basically the Apocrypha was canonized at these councils because of the influence of one person - Saint Augustine.​

There was one great Hebrew scholar among the Christian Church living in the era of Saint Augustine - Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate. Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.

We can start there:

​

​

I agree with point 3, however the canon the Jews accept was defined after the fall of the temple and the rise of Christianity.

 

[PloverWing]

What I'm seeing in post #1 (quoted from Don Stewart, Blue Letter Bible, Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?) and post #2 (quoted from David Briones, A Brief History of the Apocrypha - Westminster Theological Seminary) is that the exact status of the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books was not firmly settled for the church's first few centuries.

The posts say that these books were "Rejected By Most Church Leaders", but also that the "early church fathers ... frequently paraphrased portions of the Apocrypha and even call the writer of 2 Esdras 'another of the prophets' ". And, on the one hand, "Augustine argued for the canonicity of the Apocrypha, drawing from it frequently in his writings" and "the Council of Carthage (AD 397) sided with Augustine, but the two views remained in the church until the Reformation." But on the other hand, "The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive".

I'm seeing a canon that's in flux until, finally, the Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant communities came to decisions about what they considered to be canonical -- and these four communities all made different decisions.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

APOCRYPHA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

Are the Apocrypha Quoted in the New Testament?

You are here: Home / The Bible / DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT​

Scripture​

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 – Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 – Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 – Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 – Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 – let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 – if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 – Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 – description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 – Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 – Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 – Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 – the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 – Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 1:3 – all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 – who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 – Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 – Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 – Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 – the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.
John 15:6 – branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
Acts 1:15 – Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 – leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 – Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 – description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 – Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 – specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 – the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 – this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 4:17 – Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.
Rom. 5:12 – description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 – usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 – Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 – warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 – Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 – Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.
1 Cor. 10:20 – what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.
1 Cor. 15:29 – if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
Eph. 1:17 – Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 – Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
Eph. 6:13-17 – in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 – Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2 Tim. 4:8 – Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 – Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 – Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.
Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Heb. 12:12 – the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.
James 1:19 – let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.
James 2:23 – it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 – it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
James 3:13 – James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.
James 5:3 – describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.
James 5:6 – condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.
1 Peter 1:6-7 – Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
1 Peter 1:17 – God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 – God judges man according to his deeds.
2 Peter 2:7 – God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.
Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 – power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.
Rev. 2:12 – reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.
Rev. 5:7 – God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.
Rev. 8:3-4 – prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 8:7 – raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
Rev. 9:3 – raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.
Rev. 11:19 – the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 – description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:1 – the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.
Rev. 19:11 – the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 – description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 21:19 – the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Exodus 23:7 – do not slay the innocent and righteous – Dan. 13:53 – do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.
1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.
2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.
2 Tim. 3:16 – the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

Scripture Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents. Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure. Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto...

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I agree with point 3, however the canon the Jews accept was defined after the fall of the temple and the rise of Christianity.

Point 3 says "always" and that is demonstrably not correct by the inclusion of the books in the LXX which was a Jewish translation of their sacred scriptures undertaken, according to tradition, in Alexandria Egypt; so, it seems clear that the Jews who did the translation accepted the seven books and the long Esther and long Daniel as scripture.

 

[rturner76]

The Apocrypha was always included in New Testament scripture until some Protestants got together and said "Hey, let's throw out the books of the Bible that we don't like," Most of these people follow the non-Biblical term "Sola Scriptura." What is hilarious is the same people who idolize the New Testament as a God, throw out the writing of the same God that they don't want to hear/read. The hypocrisy is knee-slapping funny Ha ha ha ha ha ha hah! What jokers God love them. Each and every hypocrite that seeks to throw out books of the Bible they worship more than God himself........Congratulations

 

[BobRyan]

Nope. Those are post-facto justifications and nothing more. A good number of them are just inaccurate too.

Council of Trent in the 1500's - is post-facto to the first century NT text read in both the first and second centuries.

Protestantism rejects seven canonical books {Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, first and second Maccabees, Baruch} and parts of Esther and parts of Daniel because <pause for effect>

They were never in the OT (Hebrew Bible ) to begin with.

Jerome in the 4th century admitted to this in his prologues.

The Jews knew not to include them -- long before the 1500's.

The OT is not the product of the Catholic Church or the NT Christian church - rather it is the domain of OT Jews.

 

[BobRyan]

The Apocrypha was always included in New Testament scripture

The new testament is entirely confined to the first century AD and no Apocryphal book was written in the first century AD.
The New Testament text - is only 27 books and is not disputed by either the Catholic Church or the Protestants.

until some Protestants got together and said "Hey, let's throw out the books of the Bible

The OT belongs to the Jews - and they did not claim that their own non-Christian Jewish authors that wrote the Apocryphal books - were writting scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree with point 3, however the canon the Jews accept was defined after the fall of the temple and the rise of Christianity.

Not according to their own first century historian - Josephus , who clearly states that the Jewish OT canon had remained - asis for over 400 years... no changes... and kept in the Temple.

 

[rturner76]

The new testament is entirely confined to the first century AD and no Apocryphal book was written in the first century AD.
The New Testament text - is only 27 books and is not disputed by either the Catholic Church or the Protestants.


The OT belongs to the Jews - and they did not claim that their own non-Christian Jewish authors that wrote the Apocryphal books - were writting scripture.

St Jerome translated the Bible into Latin between A.D. 383 and 404. He originally translated it all from Greek, but as he went on he corrected the Old Testament against the Hebrew original. The entire Western Christian world accepted this translation which included the Apocrypha/ Protestants don't like some of it so they threw it ou but still claim that one can read the Bible and obtain the fullness of faith and knowledge of scripture. What else should you throw out? Maybe the Book of St Peter because you prefer Paul's message?

That is the problem with Prototestism. If they don't like something the Bible says they just chuck that part out. The same with the Gospel, the parts they don't like (for example obedience), they Chuck it out. The original Church that Jesus founded and passed to Paul approved the books to be a part of scripture. Was Christ mistaken? Were the Apostles mistaken? Were the people that came along 1500 years later mistaken?

 

[Valletta]

What I'm seeing in post #1 (quoted from Don Stewart, Blue Letter Bible, Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?) and post #2 (quoted from David Briones, A Brief History of the Apocrypha - Westminster Theological Seminary) is that the exact status of the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books was not firmly settled for the church's first few centuries.

The posts say that these books were "Rejected By Most Church Leaders", but also that the "early church fathers ... frequently paraphrased portions of the Apocrypha and even call the writer of 2 Esdras 'another of the prophets' ". And, on the one hand, "Augustine argued for the canonicity of the Apocrypha, drawing from it frequently in his writings" and "the Council of Carthage (AD 397) sided with Augustine, but the two views remained in the church until the Reformation." But on the other hand, "The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive".

I'm seeing a canon that's in flux until, finally, the Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant communities came to decisions about what they considered to be canonical -- and these four communities all made different decisions.

The Catholic Church, in a process that spanned centuries, chose the 73 books of the Bible and established those books as the canon of the Bible in the late 300s. We use the same books in the same order today that the Church decided upon in the 300s. All Bibles in the European world contained those books in the same order for the next thousand years or so. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon containing the same books in the same order we Catholics use today. The list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

They were never in the OT

They are in the most ancient existing copies of the LXX and that is the Old Testament.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The OT is not the product of the Catholic Church

The canon of the Old Testament is a product of Catholic Church councils.

 

[rturner76]

The Catholic Church, in a process that spanned centuries, chose the 73 books of the Bible and established those books as the canon of the Bible in the late 300s. We use the same books in the same order today that the Church decided upon in the 300s. All Bibles in the European world contained those books in the same order for the next thousand years or so. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon containing the same books in the same order we Catholics use today. The list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

True Biblical scholarship. I have a question for my brother in faith, what makes Protestants think that they can put the words of the Bible in a place above God, and then think they can pick and choose which parts of the book that they worship are relevant? I tend to believe that the Word of God is Jesus Christ and not a picked apart version of the book that the first and only Church founded by their knowledge and understanding of the message that Christ delivered to the original Church )Jesus Christ founded and handed to the Rock who he named Paul which means Rock?

 

[Valletta]

Not according to their own first century historian - Josephus , who clearly states that the Jewish OT canon had remained - asis for over 400 years... no changes... and kept in the Temple.

The Sadducees, for example, recognized a different OT canon. While they were there when Jesus walked the earth they later disappeared when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Sadducees, for example, recognized a different OT canon. While they were there when Jesus walked the earth they later disappeared when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.

And the Essenes had a larger canon than did the Pharisees; so, @BobRyan , is relying on what may have been the Pharisees' holy books - not yet a canon - which much later, Rabbinic Judaism made into a canon, probably some time between the late second century AD and the sixth century AD.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture
2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture
3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture
4. The Books Of The Apocrypha Were Written During The Silent Years
5. The Septuagint Translation Proves Nothing

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.​

6. There Is No Evidence The Apocrypha Was In Septuagint At The Time Of Christ
7. There Is No Evidence Of A Greater Alexandrian Canon
8. They Are Not On The Early Canonical Lists
9. They Were Rejected By Most Church Leaders
10. There Are Other Books Apart From The Apocrypha That Are Cited As Scripture By Some Church Fathers
11. The Early Greek Manuscripts Are Not Decisive

The Books Have A Different Order And Content​

In the three most important Greek manuscripts the order and the contents of the books are different.​

12. The Apocrypha Is Not A Well-Defined Unit
13. The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive

The fact that the councils of Hippo and Carthage accepted the canonical status of the Apocrypha is not decisive. First, they were not larger more representative councils. In addition, these councils had no qualified Hebrew scholar in attendance. Basically the Apocrypha was canonized at these councils because of the influence of one person - Saint Augustine.​

There was one great Hebrew scholar among the Christian Church living in the era of Saint Augustine - Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate. Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.

We can start there:

​

​

The authors of the Apocrypha acknowledge that they aren’t prophets and don’t speak with divine authority like the Old Testament authors. The author of 1 Maccabees writes:

So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when prophets ceased to appear among them (1 Macc. 9:27).

Prophets only existed in their ancient memories. This text, written around 100 BC, refers back to a time when the prophets were in their midst. The logical conclusion is that no prophet existed at this time who could speak from God. First Maccabees 14:41 also says as much:

The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever until a trustworthy prophet should arise.

Again, none of the Jews knew of a prophet who was speaking from God during the time of these events.

Additionally, these books contain theological and historical errors. For example, the Book of Wisdom indicates that God created the world out of preexisting matter (11:17) which contradicts the rest of Scripture’s teaching that God created the world out of nothing. Moreover, the book of Judith incorrectly states Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria, when in fact, he was the king of Babylon (1:5).

It’s hard to imagine how the Spirit could inspire documents containing both theological and historical error. When you couple the errors with the authors’ acknowledgment that no prophets existed during this time, we have good reasons to reject the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture.


The Jews don’t believe the Apocrypha belongs in their Bible, and they never have. Josephus, the greatest Jewish historian of the first century, explained:

It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers.

Josephus’ quote is especially helpful here. He indicates that ever since the reign of Artaxerxes (465-424 BC), the Jewish writings (the Apocrypha) have “not been esteemed of the like authority with the former (the Old Testament) by our forefathers.” In other words, the Jewish consensus was that while these writings might contain some helpful history and content, they don’t belong in the same category as the Old Testament texts.

Rabbinic literature during the first couple of centuries also affirms this distinction. The Babylonian Talmud reports:

After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.

Based on this text, the Jews recognized that the Spirit stopped speaking through the prophets after Malachi died. Thus, the Apocryphal documents, which were written after Malachi, are not Spirit-inspired Scripture.

In fact, no early or recent Jewish canon includes the Apocrypha. That the Jews reject these Jewish documents as Scripture is a strong indication that they don’t belong in our Bible.


When reading the New Testament, you will find hundreds of quotations from the Old Testament. According to one count, Jesus and his apostles quote various portions of the Old Testament as Scripture 295 times. Not once, however, do they quote a text from the Apocrypha.

The absence of references to the Apocrypha speaks volumes. After all, if these books were from God, why wouldn’t Jesus or his apostles quote from them? They don’t, because they believed the Old Testament canon was closed, and it didn’t include the Apocrypha.

We see a couple hints of this in the New Testament. Jesus indicates in Luke 24:44 that the Jewish Scripture include, “The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” In other words, Jesus breaks down the Jewish canon into three sections — the law, the prophets, and the writings (the Psalms represented the writings). Notice he doesn’t mention the Apocrypha.

Jesus gives another indication of a closed Jewish canon in Luke 11:51. When talking to the Jewish leaders, Jesus says the Jews will be held accountable for all the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah. At first glance, it might appear that Jesus is making an alphabetical list, but that’s not what he’s doing. Remember, his alphabet was different from ours. Instead, Jesus makes a chronological list. Abel was the first martyr in Genesis (the first book), and Zechariah was the last martyr in Chronicles (the last book in the Jewish Bible). Note, the Jewish Bible contains all the same books as our present Old Testament, but their ordering of the books is different.

Again, the New Testament provides strong evidence that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in our Bible.


The Roman Catholic Church officially declared that the Apocrypha was canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546. One must ask though if these books were authoritative, why wait over fifteen hundred years to declare their authority? It seems that Rome declared their canonical status as a direct response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers who rejected these books and their teachings.

Perhaps the biggest reason these books were even up for discussion is because St. Jerome hesitantly included them in the Latin Vulgate Bible in AD 404. Because this was the official Bible of the Western Church for over a thousand years, it’s not hard to imagine how Christians began to think the Apocrypha was also Scripture.

While Jerome included these books in his Vulgate, he specifically differentiated them from the rest of the Bible. He indicated that these books were “not for the establishing of the authority of the doctrines of the church.”4 That is to say, Jerome recognized that these books didn’t carry the same authority as Scripture. Only Scripture establishes Christian doctrine. The Apocrypha doesn’t have authority to do that.

Knowing the origins of their inclusion in the Latin Vulgate and the late declaration of their canonical status is yet another reason to reject these books as Scripture.

Source: Why The Apocrypha Isn’t In The Bible