Why does Prodestant Bible's omit the books of: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch?

Answer 1

There are very good reasons why the Apocrypha (including 16 books, not just the 7 you mentioned; these are: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Additions to Esther, 1 Macabees, 2 Macabees, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Prayer of Azariah, Prayer of Manasseh, Bel and the Dragon, and Laodiceans.) is not included in the Protestant Bible.

Jesus said, "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.

Another thing that Jesus said was, "...this generation will be charged with the blood of all the prophets that was shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who died between the altar and the sanctuary..." (Luke 11:50-51)

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 2

You said why does Protestant Bibles omit the books of Tobit, Judith, 1& 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch; it is because they're not inspired of God is one reason. The next reason is because it contradicts the Bible. "These pseudepigraphal and deuterocanonical books were never considered scripture by the Christian church because they were not authoritative, inspired, written by either Prophets or Apostles, nor do they have the power of the word of the books of the existing Bible. Therefore, since the books are not lost and were never part of the Bible to begin with, they have no bearing on the validity of the Bible."
http://www.carm.org/questions/lost_books.htm

I know my Bible very well from Genesis to Revelation; knowing it very well; I wanted to know if these other books were biblical because I heard from sources it wasn't. I also heard it was not inspired so I checked for myself. As I read these books; I found lots of contradictions.
Some sources to check out the validity of the Apocrypha.
http://www.bible-truth.org/Apocrypha.html
http://www.anunseenworld.com/mysteryofthebible.html
http://www.carm.org/catholic/apocrypha_errors.htm

Answer 3

you have become slightly mixed up there, Pastor artwork The Catholic Church makes use of the Septuagint to confirm the Canon of the former testomony, which i'm confident you are able to keep in mind predates Luther by technique of a sturdy 15 centuries, if no better. maximum scholars agree that the Septuagint became finished by technique of the first century BCE. Luther bumped off books from this canon and relabeled them the Apocrypha, which he first printed in 1534, nicely in the previous his lack of existence in 1546. those are the books the Catholics communicate with. The Council of Trent did not ratify a Canon, yet *defined* it in 1546, as a reaction to the so-referred to as "Reformation."

Answer 4

My understanding is that these books were omitted because they were not included in the set of Jewish scriptures the Reformation leaders were working from. I *believe* that was the Septuagint, but I could be wrong.

Their logic was that if the Jewish scholars (whose Holy Scriptures, i.e., Old Testament, they were using) didn't accept these books as authoritative, then that was good enough for them.

It's not anything sinister, as some people want you to think.

Answer 5

These are texts that were originally included in the Septuagint. Most Protestant denominations do not consider them to be divinely inspired.

For example, Bel and the Dragon (which should also be on your list) is about Daniel and portrays him in an entirely different light than the cannonical book of Daniel. Both books cannot be right, due to the discrepancies. For this reason, Jewish and Protestant Christian scholars dismiss this book as having been written much later than the Book of Daniel.

Answer 6

And theyre really good whats more,
Its their loss,I'm not sure if these books were only added after the 2nd vatican council in the 50s,
The reason they arent in the protestant bible is because they werent in the catholic bible when the protestants split(wrongly) from the catholic church.

Tobit is good too because how many other angel stories have we got.

wisdom 13:1"For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God,"
.

Answer 7

Those books do not contribute to central theme of the Bible, that runs from the Old Testament and the New Testament. This theme is Jesus, the saviour of the world. They do provide historical facts though, of which many of it is accurate.

Answer 8

Not sure but Sirach is an excellent book, definitely one of my favorites! Lots of priceless wisdom in there

Answer 9

These books were originally ommitted from holy scripture by the same Jewish religious leaders that rejected Jesus Christ and put Him to death because these books were used by Jesus and His Apostles to teach. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body can only be found in 2 Macabees.

At the time of the protestant Reformation, Protestant reformers rejected the catholic Bible, along with lots of other catholic things, and adopted a list of scripture witten by people who denied Christ.

Answer 10

These are historical books. They aren't used in a Mass anyways.
Protestants liked to change things. They did.
These books are no big whoop anyways.