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
> 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
> 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.
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. 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.
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.
You say the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that these books don't belong.
Meanwhile Wikipedia says there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed.
Don't you think your statement and Wikipedia's are somewhat in conflict?
It also says 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 – but that is just the opinion of some scholars, and other scholars disagree.
Contrary to the opinion of those scholars, I think there is good evidence that the canon was not fixed that early. The fact that Mishnah Yadayim records 2nd century CE Rabbis debating whether Qohelet(Ecclesiastes) and Song of Songs belonged in the canon or not is evidence that the Pharisees did not finish fixing their canon until the 2nd century CE, by which point Christianity had already begun to separate into a separate religion, and most Christians did not feel bound by the Pharisees' decisions.
The fact that the canon wasn't fixed doesn't mean the apocryphal books were part of it. I'm saying there is little evidence to support that, even though the canon wasn't fixed. And again, that's just one of many arguments against the apocrophya.
And that's besides the fact that even if there was some so-called "debate" about it, if the canon didn't actually change as a result of those debates (e.g. Song of Songs and Eccl. are part of the canon), then how can you say it wasn't fixed? I mean, that's just silly.
> The fact that the canon wasn't fixed doesn't mean the apocryphal books were part of it
That's not the point. The point is that there wasn't a single canon, different sects of Jews had different canons. All these canons were overlapping – all Jews accepted the Torah, there was widespread (but not universal) acceptance of the Prophets; the third part of the Jewish canon, the Writings (Ketuvim) saw the most disagreement. And we have evidence that the canon of the Qumran community did include books now considered "apocryphal"–see https://www.jstor.org/stable/24663170
Did some Greek-speaking Jews include "apocryphal" works in their canon, just as the Qumran community did? Well, we have evidence that the Qumran community included Greek-speaking Jews – most of the Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew or Aramaic, but some Greek texts were recovered as well.
We know that many Greek-speaking early Christians accepted some of the pre-Christian Greek "apocryphal"/"deuterocanonical" works as canonical. Why did they do that? Well, a very plausible hypothesis is that some Hellenistic Jews already accepted them as canonical, and Hellenistic Christianity inherited that acceptance from (segments of) Hellenistic Judaism. We don't have direct proof of that, but as a historical hypothesis it is very plausible, especially in light of the evidence from Qumran that some Jews (even Greek-speaking ones) did accept (other) "apocryphal" works in their canon.
> And that's besides the fact that even if there was some so-called "debate" about it, if the canon didn't actually change as a result of those debates (e.g. Song of Songs and Eccl. are part of the canon), then how can you say it wasn't fixed?
The canon did change. In the middle of the second century CE, the Pharisees still had multiple canons – a narrow canon which excluded Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, a broad canon which included them, and also a couple of intermediate canons which included one but not the other. The outcome of this debate was that the broad canon won out over the narrow and intermediate ones, and supporters of those other canons died out.
And, if we consider other Jewish groups such as the Sadducees or the Qumran community, we find even more Jewish canons than that. However, the 1st and 2nd centuries CE saw a great deal of decline in the diversity of Judaism, due to various factors (the trauma of the Jewish-Roman wars, competition from Christianity), and part of that decline in diversity was the reduction of multiple canons to one. But that reduction did not complete until after Christianity had already split off from Judaism, which is why many Christians (both in the early Church, and also today) do not believe that Christians are bound by it.
> All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel.
All the Rabbis it quotes are known to have been active in the 2nd century CE. So in the 2nd century CE, there was a real debate among the (successors of the) Pharisees about the canonicity of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.
Furthermore, this passage gives evidence that the same debate was active in the 1st century CE as well (and possibly even the 1st century BCE too), through Rabbi Shimon's reference to Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.
> The point is that there wasn't a single canon, different sects of Jews had different canons.
You're attaching a lot of weight to a lot of different historical viewpoints. Of course you can find different sects of Jews with different canons. You can find different sects of Jews doing a lot of strange things including committing mass suicide.
However, the majority of the most recognized scholars and historians of the first few centuries C.E. do not consider the so-called apocryphal books as part of the Bible canon. Josephus, Jerome, Councils at Laodicea and Chalcedon, as well as numerous church Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Melito, Origen, Hilary, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzus, Rufinus of Aquileia) testify to the closing of the canon outside of the apocryphal books.
> We know that many Greek-speaking early Christians accepted some of the pre-Christian Greek "apocryphal"/"deuterocanonical" works as canonical. Why did they do that?
It doesn't matter. A lot of your arguments hinge on finding obscure debates and controversies. So what if there was controversy among some? The general consensus, however, disagrees with those debates and controversies and finds them irrelevant.
> The canon did change. In the middle of the second century CE, the Pharisees still had multiple canons
You mean the same Pharisees about whom the the Jew, Jesus Christ, said: "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)
> And, if we consider other Jewish groups such as the Sadducees or the Qumran community, we find even more Jewish canons than that.
Again, do you mean the Sadducees whom Jesus and many first century Jews condemned? It's irrelevant to even consider any canon that contradicts the most well respected historians and scholars of those time periods. You refer to them as "canons" but they are no such thing. The Hebrew canon was well established by the time of Josephus and only a few obscure sources contradict that.
> And why do you dismiss it as 'some so-called "debate"'? It was a real debate, you can read the Mishnah for yourself
I dismiss it because it's irrevelant. In fact, it's about as relevant as you and I having this debate right now, because neither you or I can change the fact that the canon was well established before the 1st century CE.
> All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.
You want me to take seriously a document that says that?
> Furthermore, this passage gives evidence that the same debate was active in the 1st century CE as well (and possibly even the 1st century BCE too), through Rabbi Shimon's reference to Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.
Yes, it was very active -- among people who had no say in the matter and whose opinions didn't mean a whole lot until we decided to throw 20th century criticism into the mix.
> 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.
Part of the problem with this whole approach is that there is no agreement on how to slice Christianity into "primary denominations". Indeed, most presntations of Christianity – in fields such as comparative religion or church history – don't start with "denominations", they start with branches. Some divide Christianity into two main branches – Western (Catholics and Protestants) and Eastern (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East). And as you can see, each of those two main branches in turn has some major sub-branches. (There are also some hybrid cases which straddle the East-West boundary, most notably the Eastern Catholics.) And then Protestantism in particular is in turn divided into some major sub-sub-branches, such as Anabaptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed, etc. And then in turn those major branches of Protestantism contain denominations within them – for example, the US has three major Lutheran denominations, the mainline-to-liberal ELCA, the conservative LCMS, and the (arguably even more) conservative WELS, along with over 30 minor ones. Now, at which level of this tree do you count? Because if you count at the level of individual denominations, no doubt Protestants outnumber everyone else, simply because they are (by far) the least unified branch of Christianity. But, if you drill up the tree, to the level of major branches, then on many issues Protestants end up being "the odd ones out".
> including Catholicism, which didn't even exist until at least 300 years after Christ
Church history is complicated, and terms like "Catholicism" have multiple meanings. Whether what you just said is true may depend on what exactly you mean by the word "Catholicism".
> 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 agree with you there. I think there is good historical evidence of their acceptance as part of the Bible by many of the Church Fathers.
> 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.
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.
The GP’s comment sought to marginalize & disrespect a religious text by misrepresenting the text's prominence within its own religion.
I suspect we would not be playing word games, if they instead said that SuperNotes is not a real notetaking app and justified it with “notetaking means a lot of things to a lot of people”
The work to marginalize/sideline those texts was already done by many others over an extended period of time, GP was just pointing that out (and pointing out why they have done so).
I would be happy for you to say that Supernotes is not a note-taking app if instead you felt it was more of a knowledge-management app or a digital zettelkasten system. Note-taking does mean different things to different people. Some people don't think it's effective note-taking if you're not doing it with pen and paper.
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.
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.
A perfectly good case to make (I'm not quite convinced by "most churches" as a metric), but doing so is different from moving goalposts and calling it "weighting".
> 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.
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?
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.
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
> * 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-d...]
> * 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
"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)
> * 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
> There is no evidence that there was a closed Hebrew Canon prior to the time of Jesus.
If that's the case, then any argument that predates Jesus in favour of the Deuterocanon would also be invalid.
> I'm not sure why you think that is relevant?
My argument against the Septuagint is relevant because it's often used as an example of why the Deuterocanonical books should be included in the Bible canon. The Septuagint is a direct translation of the Hebrew books (i.e. what would eventually become the Hebrew canon). If the Hebrew canon (even if it was just a loose canon at that time) never included the Deuterocanonical books, then there is no reason to assume the Septuagint would suddenly include them in its first copies.
> 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?
No, of course not. I provided a body of evidence against the Deuterocanon. This is just one part of that argument. The argument is strengthened by all the points, not just one of them.
> Numerous non-canonical works, like the Book of Enoch, are quoted in the New Testament - does that make them canonical?
No. Again, same as above. The point alone isn't extremely meaningful until you consider all the evidence.
> 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.
I think the key word there is "believe". Unless a writer says something along the lines of 'the prophet says...' then the argument is weak at best.
> This is inaccurate, look at the historical record:
Well, according to Wikipedia: "Early church fathers such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem, spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome who preferred the Hebrew canon, whereas Augustine and others preferred the wider (Greek) canon."
So it's certainly debatable, but there's much evidence to support what I said, as far as I can see.
> Actually that's not the case - their "problems" are the same as those from the rest of the Protestant canon.
Examples: Tobit claims to have seen events in his lifetime that cover more than 250 years, but Tobit 14:1-3 says he died at 102 years of age. Judith contains geographical oddities that can't be resolved except with miraculous assumptions. Ecclesiasticus 25:33 blames Eve for human sin instead of Adam, which contradicts Apostle Paul's writings. Baruch says the Jewish exile would last '7 generations', contradicting the Bible canon which says it would be 70 years. That's just a small sampling.
* 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