What do fundamentalists think of the 7 books deleted from the original Bible?

Question

Fundamentalists are pretty extreme on literalism,as compared to the major denominations. They recoil at any suggestion of reediting the Bible. And yet the version they read doesn't have seven books that were a part of it for 1500 years - three-fourths of the Christian era - and it doesn't seem to bother them at all. Why not? Just because the Church of England excluded them while the Catholic Church kept them? Fundamentalists are not Anglican (Episcopalian over here),so why should they care what theChurch of England did,or what the Catholics didn't do? We have it in it's original form,you'd think as literalist as fundamentalists are they would be outraged to learn the King Jimmy is missing seven books. So why not? And what do they think?

Answer 1

Frankly, because there was a general Protestant editing of the Bible. They didn't succeed with the New Testament (they tried, Luther calling James a "right strawy epistle").

However, in the OT, the Jews settled it differently than Christians. It was an open canon at first, so this is really a canon made by a community that rejected Christ, but they used it as an excuse to edit the canon (but won't follow the consistency and judge the NT with the same men).

You'll hear all sorts of excuses: "They weren't quoted in the NT." So? Neither were Nehemiah or Esther, and in fact the book of Tobit is alluded to directly in the NT and I Enoch quoted directly (and they didn't insert it).

"They contain no miracles." Again, so? Look, again, at Esther. Where are the miracles in the Psalms?

"It contains additions to the original Hebrew form." So does the Hebrew they took. The book of Job and Jeremiah in the Christian Bible are different than what the Jews handed down, having several additions not present in the LXX. Daniel itself, even in the Hebrew, is written in two different languages (one of those things that make you go "hmm").

"The Jews rejected it." Those same Jews who determined that version of the OT reject the NT though, but they won't apply it the same way.

The excuses go on, but what it really boiled down to is that the Reformers were not so much Sola Scriptura as Sola Scriptura which agrees with me. We can't have prayer for the dead or those sorts of things. Likewise, the mention of works with salvation actually caused Luther to jettison James (and that wasn't the only NT book they wanted to jettison).

It, also, is tied to their hate of Roman Catholicism. They weren't so much concerned with what was true, but what was Catholic and rejecting it. Consequently, they carried that even into the canon, and they edited it to suit their beliefs.

This betrays a hypocrisy on their part. They want to be based on Scripture, but they want a Scripture that agrees with their preconceptions. They can't have it both ways.

Answer 2

In Jesus' time the O. T. manuscripts were in Hebrew and Greek. The 7 books in question did not have any Hebrew manuscripts and the Jewish scribes stated they were apocrypha - doubtful.

St. Matthew's gospel has more references and quotations from Old Testament prophecies than any of the 4 gospels. I understand all come from the Greek rather than the Hebrew.

The Protestant reformers at first had the 7 books in a separate section but eventually omitted them.

The Cathoic Church at the Council of Trent reaffirmed that the 7 books were canonical.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches accept the 7 books and some have some additional books.

I was raised on the KJV. I became a Catholic reading the KJV. I sincerely believe the exclusions or inclusion of those 7 books will not make a person convert from Catholicism to Protestantism of from Protestantism to Catholicism.

In Maccabees there is a verse about it being a wholesome thing to pray for the dead. I can't help but believe most knowledgeable Protestants know that Jews say Kadish for their dead.

Answer 3

Your facts aren't straight but the Catholics and liberals accept the books. It has nothing to do with the Church of England. The 7 you refer to did not pass the tests of "inspired books", meaning "not from God's will and authorship; as did all the others accepted in what is known as the King James Version of the Bible. Now, King James didn't decide this, he had scholars from all over and experts from every necessary field to translate from Greek and Hebrew and later these books were tested by a process that met a certain criteria..., these 7 did NOT meet that criteria! And there are even more than these 7 that are often brought up for dispute and "discovered", but never fear, the scriptures that I read says four different times in 3 different books: "there is nothing hidden that won't be revealed and nothing covered that won't be made known" plus it is said in Psalms: "His truth endures to all generations", so NO SWEAT that I am missing anything without these 7 or 12 or 100.
God's got it covered. (wink) The 66 books are "fundamentally sound".

Answer 4

Hello, Much depends on which side of the fence you are on. Simply put the reformers argued that these books were just historical narratives that had no divine inspiration according to the Jews as well and should never have been put into the Bible by the old church fathers in the first place whilst Catholics say that these books contained teachings and points of view which contradict Protestant criticism of Catholicism and hence had to be conveniently put aside. Cheers, Michael Kelly

Answer 5

" The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support fur such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Macabese 23:45-46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iranians, Tortellini, and Clement of Alexandria used the apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.
Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, no New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired.
Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers - notable Origin and Jerome - who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early Augustine acknowledged the Apocrypha, in his later years he rejected these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Jewish Council of Jamie, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha (especially those relating to Obit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.

Answer 6

Actually there is a document from the second century of the books that were accepted reading in the assemblies of the day that is an almost item for item list of the books in the new testament in the bible we have today, called the Muratorian fragment.

Answer 7

The seven books, missing from non-Catholic Bibles are the Deutero-Canonical.

Their loss of scripture.

Answer 8

It isn't only Fundamentalists who believe that the Apocryphal books do not belong in the Bible. The Jews have the same Scriptures as the Protestant English Bible.

Jesus said this: "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms had to be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

Notice that Jesus discussed the law, the prophets, and the psalms. In the Hebrew Bible (which Jesus would have used), there are twenty-two books, which are broken into those three sections. Another ancient witness to this fact is the first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. In his writings, he speaks of the Hebrew Scriptures as having twenty-two books with the same three divisions as well. If you compared the Hebrew Scriptures to our Protestant Old Testament, you would see that the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Scriptures are equivalent to the thirty-nine books in the Protestant Old Testament.

The difference is in the breakdown. For example, in the Hebrew Scriptures, I and II Samuel are considered one book. As are I and II Kings. Joshua, Judges and Ruth are one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations are also one book. Ezekiel and the minor prophets are one book. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah are one book. I and II Chronicles are one book.

Nine of these books are called writings, four are called the latter prophets, four are called the former prophets, and five are called the Law of Moses, for a total of twenty-two books. Therefore, none of the Apocryphal books are considered Scripture in the Hebrew Bible. Our Protestant Bible follows this same pattern.

In Luke 11:51, Jesus had been speaking to the religious leaders of His day, and called them into account for all of the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zechariah. Abel's blood was the first to be shed (in Genesis) and Zechariah's blood was shed in Chronicles (the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures). Although Zechariah's blood is not the last to be shed chronologically, it is when you look at it in the order of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore, Jesus was speaking of the first and the last blood being shed according to the order they appear in the Hebrew Scriptures. In effect, Jesus was calling the Old Testament complete (without the Apocrypha).

Answer 9

Those 7 books are called the Apocropha. It contains no miracles, signs , or wonders, so most churches don't accept it as Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church however does accept it.

Answer 10

They wouldn't like them. Much of Daniel's predictions have to do with the Maccabean Era, described quite well in I & II Maccabees. They like to apply these quotes to the modern world. Without those books, they are ignorant of the true meaning of Daniel.