Why was the apocrypha removed form the bible.?

Question

It was there in the beginning,so what is the deal?

Yes Old and New Testament ones.

Sorry the books not put in the bible canon.

Not the catholic apocrypha but this apocrypha.
http://www.earlychristianwrittings.com

Not the catholic apocrypha but this apocrypha.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Answer 1

Apocrypha is a term that basically refers to several books of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts. However, several of the books have no Hebrew counterpart. These have been questioned as to whether they are validly canonical. When the Bible was compiled in and around the 4th century, they were included - but not unanimously, and later in the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and Calvin came to the Protestant views which held that these books and some others that were not unanimously deemed canonical should be removed.

Early on, Martin Luther even thought the Book of Revelation and 2 Peter - and 2 and 3 John should not have been deemed scriptural or as reliable as the other books. He later softened on those.

So, the Aprocrypha was removed because according the Protestant Reformers like Calvin and Luther they should not have been included in the first place.

Answer 2

The Apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word "apocrypha" (απόκρυφα) means "Hidden." These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The Protestant Church rejects the Apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of Scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.

Is the Apocrypha Scripture? Protestants deny its inspiration, but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it. In order to ascertain whether it is or isn't, we need to look within its pages.

Not quoted in the New Testament
First of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books. Nevertheless, a Roman Catholic might respond by saying that there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc. Does this mean that they aren't inspired either? But, these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, whereas the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says.

"then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Rom. 3:1-2. ).
Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired Scriptures were, and they never accepted the Apocrypha.

Jesus references the Old Testament: from Abel to Zechariah
Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation" (Luke 11:51).

"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers."1
This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement that Jesus was referring to when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.

Jesus references the Old Testament: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms
Catholics sometimes respond by saying that the Old Testament is referred to in three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. It is these writings that are sometimes said to include the Apocrypha. But this designation is not found in the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44).
So we see that the designation offered by the Roman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible and their argument is invalid if their argument is incorrect. Nevertheless, even if it did say "writings," it would not include the Apocrypha for the above mentioned reasons.


Church Fathers
Did the Church Fathers recognize the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history, but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420), who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of the first century, never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude that the Church Fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't.




_______________
1. http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/bible/bahnsen_canon.html S.
2. http://www.inplainsite.org/html/apocrypha.html

Answer 3

The Bible was a collection of writings. These writings were collected to read in the Church. The Church Councils met and decided which of the writings were compatible with the teachings of the Apostles. Those writings were included in the "canon" and were authorized readings in the Church. This was about 400AD. At the time of the "protestant revolution," some books (the "apocrypha" that you refer to) were removed because they did not meet the needs of the protestants. This was about 1500AD. For over 1000 years, the Bible remained the same. About 500 years ago, the "apocrypha" were removed.

Answer 4

The "apocrypha" was not removed from the Bible. The Bible, pure and complete, is still used today exactly as it was compiled at the end of the 4th Century, the same 73 divinely inspired texts, by the same Church that defined it, the Church Jesus Christ founded on the Apostles, the Holy Catholic Church. Not a word has been removed from or added to the Bible since that time.

Except of course in the Protestant tradition. Their founder, a renegade Catholic priest, discarded 7 Old Testament books of God's Word, and fully intended to trash 3 New Testament books as well. Fortunately his followers wouldn't hear of trashing the writings of the Apostles themselves, so the New Testament remained intact. However, the books he removed were not and are not "apocrypha". That term applies to writings that never were part of the Bible, like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip.

It's really amazing that Protestants take Luther's word for discarding Christian scriptures that had been in constant use for over 1,200 years, simply believing withoiut question that the Bible includes only 66 books. If Luther had his way, they would be just as certain that the Bible includes only 63 books - and just as wrong!

Answer 5

Anything that was left out of the canon was done so for authenticity issues.

What were the guidelines? Books had to have apostallic support or been written by one. Books couldnt contradict in theology the rest of Scripture.

Answer 6

There was no "Bible" when it was written. The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books that it was decided were Holy Scripture. The first one didn't appear untill well after the middle of the 4th Century. It was decided that these books would not be part of the Church cannon, so they were left out, not taken out.

Answer 7

Mostly not enough room. They couldn't include everything that everybody at the council wanted. And some, like the Gospel of Thomas, had stuff in there that the Catholic Church didn't like. So: file 13 for you, Thomas.

Answer 8

King James was divinely appointed by god to lead the english people so he had the right to determine what was real or not. 1500 years after the fact he determined what was supposed to be in the bible and what was not. He wrote what he wanted, changed what he wanted and deleted what he wanted. And they call this the word of god. Go figure.

Answer 9

the apocrypha was not considered God inspired so they took it out. what ever they deemed was God inspired was kept. that is the only explaination i can come up with from all that i have read.

Answer 10

You mean to ask, 'why don't the Prods include it, while the Catholics do?', right?