From my reading,the extra books (of the OT) were accepted by the people who chose the 'Canonical' books - for of course, the books did not just fall down from Heaven, someone wrote them, and, because a lot of things were being writtent that had errors, some people [from the group gnerally known as the fathers of the Church] had to check and see which were proper Christian. The oldes full list I've found for the NT is by Athanasius, the leader of the church in Alexandreia, followed by other ones from Augustine, both in the 4th century.
Both felt that the 'apocrypha' were part of the Bible
---peter3594 on 12/31/10|
For the vast majoirty of Christians, the Deuterocanonicals books (and a few others that are not found in the Catholic Bibles) are consider genuine parts of Holy Scriptures.
They were consider Scriptures by the Early Christians, and was only decanonized by Martin Luther (his followers followed suit) in the 16th century due to conflicts between them and his own traditions. If Martin Luther had his ways, Protestants would have a shorter NT as well.
The Church has never limited Holy Scriptures to just 66 books. This is a 16th century Protestant tradition, not shared by the Early Christians and most Christians today. It is a man-made tradition.
---Ignatius on 12/19/10|
I am just on here doing a little personal research, and frankly I'm kinda embarrassed at how some of us (Barbara and jack) are speaking to one another. It's ok to discuss and debate and even disagree, but can we remember to do it with gentleness and respect?
---Hillary on 12/18/10|
regarding the book of maccabees - does anyone realise it confirms the prohesy of daniel chapter 8 about antiochus epiphanes, and the 2300 evening and morning sacrifices?
---glen on 11/22/09|
All Man-made literature & is Not God inspired. If anything it Is an Abomination to Almighty God. God has Nothing to do with such. R-catholocism, such good people but so spiritually blind.
---Lawrence on 10/21/09|
The Deuterocanonicals do not contradict anything else in the scriptures and were part of the Christian Bible until the Reformation.
From the Maccabbees we have the source material for Hebrews 11:35, and the pre-NT source for the doctrine of the resurrection of the Body. Since Paul and the Pharisees all believed this doctrine, as explicitly taught in Maccabbees, they accepted that book. And since Jesus also taught that doctrine, it would appear that He approves of it as well.
---lorra8574 on 7/31/07|
The extra books form what is known as the Apocrypha. They are books which are not accepted as part of the canon of scripture due to contradictions extant between them and the rest of the canon. However, they are interesting, and one can learn from them. But they are not to be used as a source of instruction.
---laure5759 on 7/31/07|
Eloy - How can you say that "the catholic bible is unholy" and use as a basis for this that "God commands us not to add to, nor to take away from" his Word"? The original King James version of the Bible actually had all the books and writings found in the Catholic Bible. It was during the rise of Protestantism that these books are removed. (I am Protestant by the way.)
---Grace on 11/21/06|
The catholic bible is unholy, for God commands us not to add to, nor to take away from, his own inspired or God-breathed and God-spoken Holy Word.
---Eloy on 11/16/06|
"The apocryphal books were never part of the accepted Canon"-? They were part of the canon until the protestants took them out in 1600. The Bible quotes a dozen other books, books no longer in the Bible. The notion of 66 books being sola scriptora comes from Luther.
---MikeM on 11/16/06|
The Catholic bible has the Apocrypha in it. These books does not claim any insperation and it was not in Hebrew
---Andrew on 11/16/06|
Yawn, your self appointed superiority is growing old Jack.
---NV_Barbara on 10/28/06|
**The song of the 3 holy children'(Excuuse me for remembering 'little' instead of 'holy!') is a traditional book of the apocrypha .**
The Song of the Three is incorporated into GREEK Daniel as part of chapter 3, and hence is also part of Daniel 3 in the Latin Vulgate--and the RC Douay-Rheims and even NAB translations.
If a RC edition separates the Song into a separate chapter, it is not being "traditional", though this is done in the King James Apocrypha.
---Jack on 10/26/06|
Wrong again Jack, as in so many things.'The song of the 3 holy children'(Excuuse me for remembering 'little' instead of 'holy!') is a traditional book of the apocrypha .It has nothing to do with the ones named in the fire when the Lord also appeared. They all emerged with MUCH less stench than is on this blog.
BTW my info came from my dusty old RC bible that was retired to a bottom shelf 30 years ago when I left that mislead body.
Did I 'claim' to know an great amount about the apocrypha?
---NV_Barbara on 10/26/06|
The apocryphal books were never part of the accepted Canon. Only the 66 books that are currently in the Bible. The apocryphal books have been around since before Jesus' time, and have uncertain authorship, and are not authentic. Hebrews carried this label, true, but no-one can question it's agreement with the rest of the Bible. The apocryphal books DO NOT AGREE. They have been around merely for moral uses, NOT doctrinal teaching.
---laure5759 on 10/26/06|
O Jack, these books are so contradictory from those in a traditional (protestant bible). It's either none of the traditional books are trully biblical or these books are not trully biblical or the bible is stupid and contradictory. Indeed, sometimes the devil and demons strike me as not being very smart. I don't have any historic proof, but I know that I know as God does that those extra RCC books are not part of God's assmbled bible.
---Okebaram on 10/25/06|
Wrong again, as in so many things, Mima.
These books are PART of the Bible.
The REAL question is why do Protestants REMOVE them.
Some people want a Bible full of wholes.
I'll take the whole Bible.
---Jack on 10/25/06|
Principally because the RCC is the work religion and anytime you deal with works for your salvation you must have many many things to the Bible.
---mima on 10/25/06|
**Most are just little stories that go nowhere:'The history of Susannah', 'The song of 3 little children', 'Bel and the dragon'etc, **
NVBarbara, you really don't know as much as you claim about the Apocrypha.
First, all three of these sections, while separate books in the KJV Apocrypha, are part of Greek Daniel.
Next, it's NEVER been the "Song of the Three little Children." I's the hymns and prayer in Daniel 3 LXX attributed to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
---Jack on 10/25/06|
The entire apocrypha contains 15 or 16 books, even the RCC rejected some of them. NONE of them seem to be inspired books of the Holy Spirit, and many contradict old testament writings. Most are just little stories that go nowhere:'The history of Susannah', 'The song of 3 little children', 'Bel and the dragon'etc, they are useless.
Jesus never referred to these books or anyone in them.
---NV_Barbara on 10/25/06|
What has always bothered me is why the Maccabees were not included in the canon as they were every bit a fighter for God as any of the other OT Saints!
---1st_cliff on 10/25/06|
Yes, the apochrypha were included in the pre-reformation Bibles, but that does not make them right.
For example, Be and the Dragon. Very clearly a Persian fire god myth.
Eclisasticus, has more in common with gnostisicm then it does true |Biblical faith.
1/2 Macabees might be history, but 3/4 are just rehashes of the 1/2.
In most other cases, the books are not in agreement with the rest of scripture.
---mike8384 on 10/25/06|
Jack et al, do you use the Didachae and the Shepherd of Hermas? How about the Actii Pilatii? All three books have been accepted as scrip[ture at one time or another, nd are now rejected
---mike8384 on 10/25/06|
The books found in the Catholic Bible and not found in Protestant bibles are: Judith, Tobit, Baruch, 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees, Eclclesiasticus and Wisdom of Soloman. The difference is in what language the texts were originally written in - to decide whether they are accepted by the Protestant church.
---grace3869 on 10/24/06|
These are books found in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT translated 2 centuries before Jesus and accepted by the first Christians.
They were not removed from the Hebrew canon until the rabinnical synod of Jamnia in 90 AD, some two generations AFTER the founding of the Church.
The Synod of Jamnia was made of the spiritual descendents of the very same people Jesus condemned as fools, blind guides, and whitewashed tombs.
---Jack on 10/24/06|
It's not just Roman Catholics who receive these books, but ALL the pre-reformation churches.
The REAL question is why do Protestants agree with the teaching of thosee who rejected Jesus and crucified Him and whom Christ Himself condemned by cutting them out after THIRTEEN CENTURIES of acceptance?
---Jack on 10/24/06|