The book of 3rd Maccabees is included in the Eastern Orthodox canon, a practice which dates back at least to the 85th canon of the Apostolic Canons ratified by the Quinisext Council in 692. I had never heard of the book, nor had I heard the story contained in the book, until I purchased an Eastern Orthodox Bible. Wikipedia devotes a whole paragraph to talking about how it has generally been overlooked by theologians throughout history. **Why have theologians who consider this book canonical not placed greater emphasis on it?** Anyone who reads it cannot deny it is an interesting story, and I am sure that if it is incorporated in the canon, it must also be considered instructive. By contrast, the other deuterocanonical books have received a great deal of attention, as have the books of the protocanon.

The *Deuterocanonical books* were included in the Septuagint, but not the Hebrew Bible. They are mostly included in the Catholic Old Testament, but not in the Protestant one. I understand the choice was made by Luther, who called the deuterocanonical books > Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read Why weren't the deuterocanonical books considered equal to the Holy Scriptures?

An answer to this question, [*How do Protestants make claims to follow scripture and ignore the traditions of the ancient church which produced the scriptures?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104738/how-do-protestants-make-claims-to-follow-scripture-and-ignore-the-traditions-of/104743#104743&:~:text=the%20Spirit%20is%20still%20witnessing,leave%20the%20Catholic%20Church) , concerning the difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles, contains: > … the Spirit is still witnessing to Catholics about the canon. If the true canon is the smaller Protestant canon, then some Catholics would be persuaded by the Spirit to leave the Catholic Church, > … > Likewise, if the Protestant canon is wrong, then many people will feel the Spirit's witnessing to a larger canon. Another question, [*Which doctrines are based solely on the Deuterocanonical books?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7369/which-doctrines-are-based-solely-on-the-apocrypha) , is about doctrines that Protestants are missing out on by not accepting the Apocrypha, corresponding to the second case above. This question is about the first case: **What Protestant doctrines are refuted only by the [Deuterocanonical books](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books)?**

Revelation 22:19 KJV >And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. When I first began to study the Bible in earnest, I became intrigued by the Apocrypha, and when I spoke to my pastor about it, he ignored my questions. Some other sources, however, indicated that those apocryphal books had been rejected, because they conflicted with that particular verse. Through further study, it became apparent that the argument had no real backing. Since all of the books of the Bible were not written by the same person, and over a very long time, and they were not even compiled or even authorized until some years later.

When I was researching about the deuterocanon (or the apocrypha, as most Protestants call them) I stumbled upon the notion that God was silent during a period of 400 years between the end of the Old Testament (after the Prophet Malachi) and the beginning of New Testament time (namely the appereance of John the baptist). From a Protestant point of view where the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books are not considered scripture, there is indeed a 400 year gap in revelation -- no prophets, no inspired writings, nothing. From a Catholic, Orthodox and Assyrian Churches, point of view however there is scripture written and inspiration taking place during that period and there is no gap (at least not that long) in Gods revelation. Now, when looking for reasons why christians consider the deuterocanon/apocrypha inspired or not I am sometimes told that those writings originated in a period where God was silent and thus cannot be considered scripture (like here , here or here ). To me this is: 1. A circular argument (apocrypha are not scriptural -> God was silent 400 years -> in those 400 years no inspired scripture was written -> apocrypha are not scriptural) or 2. There must be another reason to believe God was silent for that period. This reason would break the circle in (1) and make the stated argument valid. **My Question: What biblical basis give adherents of a large time of Gods silence between the Prophet Malachi and John the Baptist beside the (perceived) fact of missing inspired scripture in that period?** A best answer could simply cite the prophet X in saying: "Listen, God will be silent for 400 years before the fulfillment of time." and then stating that this fulfillment of time has come with Christ. But there may be more to say to that matter ...

In *Systematic Theology* chapter 3 "The Canon of Scripture", Wayne Grudem says > It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). (This is on page 59 in the 1st edition.) What does he mean by this? He is certainly not unaware of the Council of Carthage (397), because he cites this just 5 pages later for its decision on the NT canon. However, the Council of Carthage's Old Testament canon includes all of the Apocrypha found in modern Catholic Bibles (except Baruch). Is this an oversight on Grudem's part? Or is there some qualitative difference between the decision of the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent that makes the latter an official declaration while the former not? *Note:* Grudem also does not mention the Council of Rome (382) anywhere that I can find, which was the first council to discuss the canon and included the Apocrypha as well, but he may be following the scholarship which regards the canon list of the *Decretum Gelasianum* not to be genuinely derived from the Council of Rome. If so, then he would have no reason to mention it as no direct evidence of the Council of Rome's decisions exist.

Which books in the Catholic Old Testament, precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible? I understand for example that the Books of Macabees isn't part of the Hebrew Bible Canon, but from what I heard, it follows it in time, rather than being rejected from it. So it wouldn't precede it. I know that the Protestant Old Testament Canon is the same one as Jews use today in their Hebrew Bible, and that the Catholic Old Testament Canon has all that plus extra books. So i'm wondering if any books in the Catholic Old Testament are so old in origin that they precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible / canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today(which is in the masoretic tradition)? There is a complexity here also, but one that opens up a possible avenue that help address the question. The Septuagint is so old it even precedes Christianity, and it has a number of books not in the modern Hebrew canon. And furthermore, my understanding is that one skilled in biblical hebrew, and ancient greek, that studies the Septuagint carefully, sees that the underlying text it is translating is slightly different in some places, implying that there was a Hebrew version for it. Further backing that up, my understanding is that in the Judean desert, while there's lots of uniformity, (and particularly uniformity within the Torah), still there are different versions/variations of text for various Hebrew books of the bible, in places here and there, small variations. And it has been viewed(perhaps by Emmanuel Tov?), as there being hebrew proto-septuatint and (of course hebrew), proto-masoretic. Moving from that to books. If there were Hebrew proto-masoretic books not in the masoretic canon of today then perhaps we wouldn't know. But it'd be interesting to know if there are Hebrew proto-septuagint books in the Dead Sea Scrolls / Scrolls from the Judean Desert? And perhaps some of those books in greek form might be in the catholic bible, so would fit what i'm asking of any books in the catholic bible that precede the canonisation of the hebrew bible. But perhaps even without considering the DSS/scrolls of the Judean desert, there might be an answer to if any books of the Catholic Old Testament are known to precede canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today?

We read in Jude 1:14-15: > Enoch, who lived in the seventh generation after Adam, prophesied about these people. He said, “Listen! The Lord is coming with countless thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment on the people of the world. He will convict every person of all the ungodly things they have done and for all the insults that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Footnote under the verses reads:The quotation comes from intertestamental literature: Enoch 1:9. My question is: What is meant by Intertestamental Literature ?

Before beginning my question, I'd like to clarify what I mean by 'Apostolic Christian'. By this, I mean anyone in the Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic Communions. The book of Sirach is a deuterocanonical book rejected by most Protestants as Scripture, but accepted as Scripture by most everyone else. It has several verses that are extremely problematic *prima facie* relating to women; all quotations are from the NSRV-CI. > For from garments comes the moth,\ > and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness.\ > Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good;\ > it is woman who brings shame and disgrace.\ > -Sirach 42:13-14 > From a woman sin had its beginning,\ > and because of her we all die....\ > If she [that is, your wife] does not go as you direct,\ > separate her from yourself.\ > -Sirach 25:24,26 > It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined son,\ and the birth of a daughter is a loss.\ -Sirach 22:3 > He who acquires a wife gets his best possession,\ a helper fit for him and a pillar of support.\ Sirach 36:29 Unfortunately, I could quote many more. Jesus ben Sirach here says that women's goodness is worse than man's wickedness; that women were the originators of sin; that if wives do not listen to you, they should be abandoned; that wives are possessions; and that, of course, the birth of a daughter is a loss. When discussing a headstrong daughter, he is incredibly obscene: > As a thirsty traveler opens his mouth\ and drinks from any water near him,\ so she will sit in front of every tent peg\ and open her quiver to the arrow.\ -Sirach 26:15 How do folks who accept this book as inspired Scripture interpret these in light of the Gospel? Patristic citations are both welcome and appreciated.

Did the famous Papal Legate, Cardinal Cajetan reject the catholic view of deuterocanonical books? > “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old > Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of > Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and > are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and > Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou > disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either > in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as > canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be > reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, > in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books > (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not > canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters > of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of > a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and > authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of > this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which > Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of > Carthage.” > > ~ Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old > Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII )

Obviously during Christ's time and maybe even before there existed different sects of Jews who held to different beliefs, but was there any sects of Jews who accepted the Deuterocanon was scripture or part of the Old Testament canon?

Orthodox Christians have a much larger canon than both Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians, this includes books such as 3 Maccabees. During the time of Jesus there were different sects of Jews. Did any Jewish sect have the same canon as the Orthodox Christians? Did any of the Early Church Fathers quote from the orthodox canon?

I understand that both the Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church accept the Deuterocanonical books as scripture. However, since their founding (I understand that they would both claim to begin with Jesus, I'm referring to their coming to power in a way) happened later in the 3rd century, I'm curious if any citations exist that suggest the 1st Century Church (or 2nd) supported the Deuterocanon.

I wonder why does the unknown author of Hebrews attribute authorship of Psalm 95 to David, but in my bible it is not written that the author of it is David? Was it an error from the unknown author of Hebrews or an error from the spirit which inspired him or not an error at all? > Hebrews 4:7 > > Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in **David**, **To day, after so > long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden > not your hearts**. > > > Psalm 95:7-8 > > For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, > and the sheep of his hand. **To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden > not your heart**, as in the provocation, and as in the day of > temptation in the wilderness:

In Judith 1:1 Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the king of the Assyrians; we know this to be an historical error because he was the was the king of the Babylonians, does this mean that Judith should not be considered scripture? Judith 1:1 reads as follows: > In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnez′zar, who ruled over > the Assyrians in the great city of Nin′eveh, in the days of Arphax′ad, > who ruled over the Medes in Ecbat′ana

I was wondering, why might Jesus not have stated the Old Testament canon in something like a list, and instead let others take account (define and compile) for that canon?

When talking with a Catholic friend (I'm a Protestant) about the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books, it occurred to me that a possible argument for their inclusion in the Canon would be their authority, measured in two ways: - Claiming to be speaking on behalf of God (e.g "Thus saith the Lord...") - Being quoted by other books considered to be a part of the Canon Thus, I was wondering which (if any) books are quoted or referenced in the New Testament? Also, are there any OT books that quote the apocrypha? (I have a feeling this may be a *stupid question* since, if I understand correctly, they were mostly written before the apocrypha.)

Here is an overview of my understanding. Questions are bolded. The Protestant canon is 66 books. The Catholic canon is 73 books. Both agree on the 27 books in the New Testament. The disagreement is what belongs in the Old Testament. (I think:) There is agreement that the first 39 books belong in the Old Testament (although two of the 39 are lengthened by Catholics with additional content). The disagreement is about the books beyond the first 39 that were perhaps written later. Catholics call these 7 books **deuterocanonical.** Protestants call these 7 books (and more - Martin Luther had 14) **apocrypha.** I'll call them the **disputed books.** The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (included some of the disputed books, although, for example, some codexes, according to Wikipedia, include Maccabees 1-4, 1 and 4 and no Maccabees whatsoever whereas the Catholics have precisely Maccabees 1 and 2). The Septuagint was written about 300 BC (although other websites I read made it sound like the disputed books were added to the Septuagint; also, as the answer below indicates at least some of them were written in Greek, vs the other 39 books were translated into Greek). The Septuagint is directly quoted in the Greek scriptures of the New Testament. Something else, I think modern-day Judaism only holds the 39 in their canon. One website claims the Protestant Old Testament canon is confirmed by the Councils of Jamnia in the first century: https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-43/how-we-got-our-bible-christian-history-timeline.html > 90 and 118 Councils of Jamnia give final affirmation to the Old Testament canon (39 books) However Wikipedia says this is disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia > The theory of a council of Jamnia that finalized the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871, was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited. The council of Jamnia was after Christ. Allegedly it excluded Christians from synagogue. **If the council of Jamnia is anti-Christian, clearly it wasn't led by Christians, so why accept anything the council says as authoritative?** Christianity Today (link earlier) says that the New Testament canon was established for the first time in 367. > 367 Athanasius’s Festal Letter lists complete New Testament canon (27 books) for the first time **Before 367 was the canon of the New Testament disputed at all? Why did it take 300 years or so to decide the canon in the first place?** According to one website, the Catholic canon was decided in 382 AD: > The Catholic Church finally agreed on which writings should go into the Bible at the Council of Rome in 382 AD during the time of Pope Damasus. (Edit: Wikipedia says Baruch was missing from the Council of Rome in 382) **Were there disputes about the canon before 382? If so, why did it take so long until the canon was officially decided at a council?** **If the canon was decided in 382, does that mean there were no disputes about the canon from 382 until the Protestant Reformation?** **Why did the Reformers dispute the canon in the first place if it was decided all the way back in 382? Were they saying the church had been wrong for 1,000 years straight?** Also, perhaps noteworthy, around this time the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible was completed by Jerome (I think) and it contains the disputed books. Although something I read said Jerome believed these disputed books weren't Scripture. (Edit: some sources I've read say Jerome later changed his mind and believed the apocrypha, as he called them, to be scripture. He was translating the Old Testament from Hebrew Scriptures, which was a first, apparently, for latin Bibles, and the Hebrew Scriptures didn't have these additional books - which if they were written in Greek originally, that's not surprising that they were not in Hebrew)

How many books were decided at the Council of Rome 382, Council of Carthage 397 and the Synod of Hippo 393? Were exactly all 73 books of the Catholic Bible declared canon at these three councils? [Catholic.com](https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-the-canon-of-scripture-determined-before-the-church-councils-that-decided-it) says: > It was not until the Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus in A.D. 382, followed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that the Catholic Church defined, albeit non-infallibly, which books made it into the New Testament and which didn’t. I didn't see the word "Baruch" on either of the Wikipedia pages for the two later councils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage Wikipedia says Baruch was missing from the Council of Rome: > The Council of Rome was a meeting of Catholic Church officials and theologians which took place in AD 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I, the then Bishop of Rome. According to Decretum Gelasianum, which is a work written by an anonymous scholar between AD 519 and 553, the Council of Rome cites a list of books of scripture presented as having been made canonical. This list mentions all the deuterocanonical books except Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as a part of the Old Testament Canon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

According to Wikipedia, the [deuterocanonical books](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books) include: Canonical for the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church: - Tobit - Judith - Baruch - Sirach - 1 Maccabees - 2 Maccabees - Wisdom - Additions to Esther, Daniel and Baruch Canonical only for the Eastern Orthodox Church: - Prayer of Manasseh - 1 Esdras - 2 Esdras - Psalm 151 - 3 Maccabees - 4 Maccabees as an appendix According to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, what are the strongest apologetic arguments for the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books? ___________________ Related and/or similar questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83901/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83868/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85997/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85999/50422