5 ms·

The books of the Deuterocanon are not viewed as canonical by most Christian churches for a number of valid reasons: * They were never included as part of the H

The books of the Deuterocanon are not viewed as canonical by most Christian churches for a number of valid reasons: * They were never included as part of the Hebrew canon of books * There is no evidence that they were included in the original versions of the Septuagint * Historian Josephus made clear that those books were not part of the canon * Not one New Testament writer quoted from the Deuterocanon * Early church fathers did not consider them part of the Bible canon * John Wycliffe, a catholic who included these books in his translation, still did not consider them of the same authority as the rest * Even the council of Trent did not accept all the “apocryphal” books (e.g. 1 and 2 Esdras were excluded) * The content of the books testifies against themselves with their inaccuracies, contradictions, and other problems that are not found in the traditional Bible canon

skissane 5y ago
> The books of the Deuterocanon are not viewed as canonical by most Christian churches for a number of valid reasons The phrase by most Christian churches is somewhat misleading. Weighting them by number of adherents, most Christian churches do accept the Deuterocanon as canonical. Two out of the three major historical branches of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) count them as canonical (*). The fissiparous nature of Protestantism means that Protestants form the vast majority of Christian denominations, counting each denomination as one regardless of its size–in spite of the fact that Protestants are a minority of all Christians. And I don't agree that the reasons you give are valid – in some places I think you have the facts wrong, or are presenting them in a biased way. I don't think this site is the best place to debate it in detail, but you can find numerous works by Catholic and Orthodox writers rebutting the arguments you make. (*) Some count more than three major branches – such as by splitting the Orthodox into Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox – but doing that still leaves Protestants the odd ones out
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ImpressiveWebs 5y ago
  > The phrase by most Christian churches is somewhat misleading. As someone else pointed out, I'm not talking about every individual church as a separate 'Christian church', I'm referring to the primary denominations, so Catholocism and Eastern Orthodox would be two churches. Most of the rest do not accept those books as part of the Bible canon. > And I don't agree that the reasons you give are valid – in some places I think you have the facts wrong, or are presenting them in a biased way. When it comes to religion, every view is biased. But that's ok if a view is correct. I'm looking at the facts based on what happened prior to all the offshoots of Christianity (including Catholicism, which didn't even exist until at least 300 years after Christ). The purely historical argument, outside of any denomination makes it clear that the Deuterocanonical books were not considered part of the Bible canon. > I don't think this site is the best place to debate it in detail, I think it's fine if we remain civil. > but you can find numerous works by Catholic and Orthodox writers rebutting the arguments you make. They are just as biased as I am. But like I said, I'm not looking at any denominational argument, I'm only looking at the facts of history prior to ~300 CE.
  - hitekker 5y ago
    Louis, this sounds like a conspiracy theory. A huge, controversial claim with misleading points, a belief that everyone is biased yet only you are "looking at the facts", a fervent desire to keep arguing on a technology-focused forum, and an ignorance of the links shared in the thread so far. If you really want to set the record straight, the place to do so is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books. You can edit the page and see what the theologians and experts on Wikipedia have to say about a frontend enthusiast's view on Biblical Historicity.
    - ImpressiveWebs 5y ago
      What part of that Wikipedia document do you think contradicts what I've said? The lede says: > Although there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed, some scholars hold that the Hebrew canon was established well before the first century AD – even as early as the fourth century BC, or by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BC). The modern Hebrew canon does not include the seven deuterocanonical books, and this was the basis for excluding them from the Protestant Old Testament. And: > Since the 16th century, most Protestant churches have accepted only works in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as the canonical Old Testament, and hence classify all the non-protocanonical books from the Septuagint as apocrypha. Those two points more or less support the points I'm making. Of course much of this is debatable, I'm not denying that, but I think the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that these books don't belong.
hitekker 5y ago
The very first sentence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books contradicts your comment. > The deuterocanonical books (from the Greek meaning "belonging to the second canon") are books and passages considered by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament The Catholic Church alone has 1 billion followers. Your bullet points after that seem to be cherry-picking and outright fabrication.
- fastball 5y ago
  The specific wording was "most Christian churches", which given how many different denominations there are in protestantism is probably accurate, although I do not have a source for this.
  - froh 5y ago
    yes. the weighted (by membership) majority of denominations clearly includes the full canon with what the minority labels "apocryphal" scriptures.
    - pgeorgi 5y ago
      The original statement went for "most Christian churches", not "most Christians" (what you'd get with your "weighting"). Maybe a useless metric but the one chosen up-thread. Going from there to implicitly weighting by membership seems rather arbitrary: I could also claim to weigh by readership (or hours of reading, or any other metric that includes actually working with the text) which might give a pretty different result, given how the idea of individually reading and interpreting the Bible is a major raison d'être of Protestantism.
      - froh 5y ago
        there are hundreds of denominations and thousands of "independent" churches. we can argue in which way we weigh their voices, but not ignore their sizes completely.
emeth 5y ago
Actually, since the discovery of the multiple Hebrew text variants (including Pre-Septuagint) found in the Dead Sea Scrolls invalidated Jerome's argument against the Deuterocanon, I have yet to see a valid reason against their inclusion stand up against inspection. Reviewing yours: > * They were never included as part of the Hebrew canon of books There is no evidence that there was a closed Hebrew Canon prior to the time of Jesus. The Hebrew scriptures were divided into three parts - The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. While it's true the Law and the Prophets had solidified by the time of Jesus, there is no evidence that the Writings were closed, and every reason to indicate that they weren't (see Rabbi Akiba and his comments regarding Sirach, Esther, and the Gospels around 100 AD). > * There is no evidence that they were included in the original versions of the Septuagint I'm not sure why you think that is relevant? > * Historian Josephus made clear that those books were not part of the canon https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=2678 https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=2678 > * Not one New Testament writer quoted from the Deuterocanon Numerous Old Testament books, like Esther, that Protestants believe to be inspired are not quoted in the New Testament - does that make them not canonical? Numerous non-canonical works, like the Book of Enoch, are quoted in the New Testament - does that make them canonical? And anyway, it's interesting to know that the original KJV of 1611 (which included the Deuterocanon) included 11 cross-references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical books, where it believe New Testament authors were quoting from or alluding to parts of the Deuteronincals. [https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6316/what-deuterocanonical-books-are-quoted-in-the-new-testament/64108#64108 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6316/what-d...] > * Early church fathers did not consider them part of the Bible canon This is inaccurate, look at the historical record: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80280/which-canon-did-the-early-church-recognize/83466#83466 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80280/which... > * John Wycliffe, a catholic who included these books in his translation, still did not consider them of the same authority as the rest "As Jerome saith" echoed down through history. Jerome, around 400 AD, mistakenly had some doubts, and those same doubts reverbated over the next thousand years. Both of Jerome's two core reasons for his doubts are now known to be wrong. > * Even the council of Trent did not accept all the “apocryphal” books (e.g. 1 and 2 Esdras were excluded) Not exactly. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/06/1-esdras-the-canon-of-hippo-carthage-trent.html https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/06/1-esdras... > * The content of the books testifies against themselves with their inaccuracies, contradictions, and other problems that are not found in the traditional Bible canon Actually that's not the case - their "problems" are the same as those from the rest of the Protestant canon. See https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=651 https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=651
jawns 5y ago
> They were never included as part of the Hebrew canon of books The Septuagint, the earliest known Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, is the version of the Old Testament most often quoted in the New Testament. It includes these books.
- ImpressiveWebs 5y ago
  The later compilations of the Septuagint included the books, but that doesn’t mean they were included originally, which we cannot verify.
  - skissane 5y ago
    The oldest surviving non-fragmentary copies of the Septuagint do include these extra books. Whether earlier copies, that don't survive, included them or not, can only be speculation. But you raised this issue as a "valid reason" for rejecting those extra books ("There is no evidence that they were included in the original versions of the Septuagint"). If we can't know and can only speculate, how can that be a "valid reason" for rejecting anything?
    - ImpressiveWebs 5y ago
      It's definitely a less significant point, but the reason I brought it up is that many make the argument that because they were included as part of the Septuagint, then they must be part of the Canon. Which is ridiculous on its face because they were never included in any Hebrew-based canon.

skissane 5y ago

> The books of the Deuterocanon are not viewed as canonical by most Christian churches for a number of valid reasons The phrase by most Christian churches is somewhat misleading. Weighting them by number of adherents, most Christian churches do accept the Deuterocanon as canonical. Two out of the three major historical branches of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) count them as canonical (*). The fissiparous nature of Protestantism means that Protestants form the vast majority of Christian denominations, counting each denomination as one regardless of its size–in spite of the fact that Protestants are a minority of all Christians. And I don't agree that the reasons you give are valid – in some places I think you have the facts wrong, or are presenting them in a biased way. I don't think this site is the best place to debate it in detail, but you can find numerous works by Catholic and Orthodox writers rebutting the arguments you make. (*) Some count more than three major branches – such as by splitting the Orthodox into Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox – but doing that still leaves Protestants the odd ones out

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ImpressiveWebs 5y ago
> The phrase by most Christian churches is somewhat misleading. As someone else pointed out, I'm not talking about every individual church as a separate 'Christian church', I'm referring to the primary denominations, so Catholocism and Eastern Orthodox would be two churches. Most of the rest do not accept those books as part of the Bible canon. > And I don't agree that the reasons you give are valid – in some places I think you have the facts wrong, or are presenting them in a biased way. When it comes to religion, every view is biased. But that's ok if a view is correct. I'm looking at the facts based on what happened prior to all the offshoots of Christianity (including Catholicism, which didn't even exist until at least 300 years after Christ). The purely historical argument, outside of any denomination makes it clear that the Deuterocanonical books were not considered part of the Bible canon. > I don't think this site is the best place to debate it in detail, I think it's fine if we remain civil. > but you can find numerous works by Catholic and Orthodox writers rebutting the arguments you make. They are just as biased as I am. But like I said, I'm not looking at any denominational argument, I'm only looking at the facts of history prior to ~300 CE.
- hitekker 5y ago
  Louis, this sounds like a conspiracy theory. A huge, controversial claim with misleading points, a belief that everyone is biased yet only you are "looking at the facts", a fervent desire to keep arguing on a technology-focused forum, and an ignorance of the links shared in the thread so far. If you really want to set the record straight, the place to do so is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books. You can edit the page and see what the theologians and experts on Wikipedia have to say about a frontend enthusiast's view on Biblical Historicity.
  - ImpressiveWebs 5y ago
    What part of that Wikipedia document do you think contradicts what I've said? The lede says: > Although there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed, some scholars hold that the Hebrew canon was established well before the first century AD – even as early as the fourth century BC, or by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BC). The modern Hebrew canon does not include the seven deuterocanonical books, and this was the basis for excluding them from the Protestant Old Testament. And: > Since the 16th century, most Protestant churches have accepted only works in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as the canonical Old Testament, and hence classify all the non-protocanonical books from the Septuagint as apocrypha. Those two points more or less support the points I'm making. Of course much of this is debatable, I'm not denying that, but I think the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that these books don't belong.

hitekker 5y ago

The very first sentence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books contradicts your comment. > The deuterocanonical books (from the Greek meaning "belonging to the second canon") are books and passages considered by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament The Catholic Church alone has 1 billion followers. Your bullet points after that seem to be cherry-picking and outright fabrication.

fastball 5y ago
The specific wording was "most Christian churches", which given how many different denominations there are in protestantism is probably accurate, although I do not have a source for this.
- froh 5y ago
  yes. the weighted (by membership) majority of denominations clearly includes the full canon with what the minority labels "apocryphal" scriptures.
  - pgeorgi 5y ago
    The original statement went for "most Christian churches", not "most Christians" (what you'd get with your "weighting"). Maybe a useless metric but the one chosen up-thread. Going from there to implicitly weighting by membership seems rather arbitrary: I could also claim to weigh by readership (or hours of reading, or any other metric that includes actually working with the text) which might give a pretty different result, given how the idea of individually reading and interpreting the Bible is a major raison d'être of Protestantism.
    - froh 5y ago
      there are hundreds of denominations and thousands of "independent" churches. we can argue in which way we weigh their voices, but not ignore their sizes completely.

emeth 5y ago

Actually, since the discovery of the multiple Hebrew text variants (including Pre-Septuagint) found in the Dead Sea Scrolls invalidated Jerome's argument against the Deuterocanon, I have yet to see a valid reason against their inclusion stand up against inspection. Reviewing yours: > * They were never included as part of the Hebrew canon of books There is no evidence that there was a closed Hebrew Canon prior to the time of Jesus. The Hebrew scriptures were divided into three parts - The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. While it's true the Law and the Prophets had solidified by the time of Jesus, there is no evidence that the Writings were closed, and every reason to indicate that they weren't (see Rabbi Akiba and his comments regarding Sirach, Esther, and the Gospels around 100 AD). > * There is no evidence that they were included in the original versions of the Septuagint I'm not sure why you think that is relevant? > * Historian Josephus made clear that those books were not part of the canon https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=2678 https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=2678 > * Not one New Testament writer quoted from the Deuterocanon Numerous Old Testament books, like Esther, that Protestants believe to be inspired are not quoted in the New Testament - does that make them not canonical? Numerous non-canonical works, like the Book of Enoch, are quoted in the New Testament - does that make them canonical? And anyway, it's interesting to know that the original KJV of 1611 (which included the Deuterocanon) included 11 cross-references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical books, where it believe New Testament authors were quoting from or alluding to parts of the Deuteronincals. [https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6316/what-deuterocanonical-books-are-quoted-in-the-new-testament/64108#64108 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6316/what-d...] > * Early church fathers did not consider them part of the Bible canon This is inaccurate, look at the historical record: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80280/which-canon-did-the-early-church-recognize/83466#83466 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80280/which... > * John Wycliffe, a catholic who included these books in his translation, still did not consider them of the same authority as the rest "As Jerome saith" echoed down through history. Jerome, around 400 AD, mistakenly had some doubts, and those same doubts reverbated over the next thousand years. Both of Jerome's two core reasons for his doubts are now known to be wrong. > * Even the council of Trent did not accept all the “apocryphal” books (e.g. 1 and 2 Esdras were excluded) Not exactly. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/06/1-esdras-the-canon-of-hippo-carthage-trent.html https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/06/1-esdras... > * The content of the books testifies against themselves with their inaccuracies, contradictions, and other problems that are not found in the traditional Bible canon Actually that's not the case - their "problems" are the same as those from the rest of the Protestant canon. See https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=651 https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=651

jawns 5y ago

> They were never included as part of the Hebrew canon of books The Septuagint, the earliest known Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, is the version of the Old Testament most often quoted in the New Testament. It includes these books.

ImpressiveWebs 5y ago
The later compilations of the Septuagint included the books, but that doesn’t mean they were included originally, which we cannot verify.
- skissane 5y ago
  The oldest surviving non-fragmentary copies of the Septuagint do include these extra books. Whether earlier copies, that don't survive, included them or not, can only be speculation. But you raised this issue as a "valid reason" for rejecting those extra books ("There is no evidence that they were included in the original versions of the Septuagint"). If we can't know and can only speculate, how can that be a "valid reason" for rejecting anything?
  - ImpressiveWebs 5y ago
    It's definitely a less significant point, but the reason I brought it up is that many make the argument that because they were included as part of the Septuagint, then they must be part of the Canon. Which is ridiculous on its face because they were never included in any Hebrew-based canon.