The Old Testament in Catholic Bibles contains seven more books than are found in Protestant Bibles (46 and 39, respectively). Protestants call these books the Apocrypha, and Catholics know them as the Deuterocanonical books. These seven books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also contain six additional chapters (107 verses) in the book of Esther and another three in the book of Daniel (174 verses). These books and chapters were found in manuscripts of the Bible written only in Greek, and were not part of the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, as the Jews determined.
All of them were dogmatically recognized as Scripture at the Council of Trent in 1548 (which means that from then on Catholics were not permitted to question their canonicity), although the tradition of their inclusion in the canon was ancient. At the same time, the Council rejected 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh as part of Sacred Scripture (they are often included in collections of the “Apocrypha” as a separate unit)
The Catholic perspective on this matter is widely unknown. Protestants accuse Catholics of “adding” books to the Bible, while Catholics reply that Protestants have “removed” part of Scripture. Catholics can offer very solid and reasonable arguments in defense of the scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books. These arguments may be summarized as follows:
1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the 3rd century B.C.), which was the “Bible” of the Apostles. They generally quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint
2) Almost all the Fathers of the Church accepted the Septuagint as the standard of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were not distinguished from the other books of the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine believed that the Septuagint was apostolically sanctioned and inspired, and that was the consensus in the early Church
3) Many Fathers of the Church (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction from the rest. Others, mostly from the East (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen), recognize a certain distinction but nevertheless habitually cite the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, in the early fifth century), was the exception to the rule (the Church has never held that the Fathers are individually infallible)
4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), greatly influenced by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply the endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the West and in most of the East. In this way, the Council of Trent reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had not been seriously challenged until the birth of Protestantism.
5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books that are accepted by all Christians, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively remove seven books from the authorized Canon. This is all the more curious when one understands the complicated and controversial history of the canon of the New Testament.
6) Pope Innocent I agreed with and sanctioned the canonical decisions of the earlier Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.
7) Some of the oldest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as the Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and the Codex Alexandrinus (c. 450) include all the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.
8) The practice of gathering these books into a separate unit dates no earlier than 1520 (in other words, it was a complete innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted, for example, in the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its “Introduction to the Apocrypha” (p. iii)
9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from its Bibles because of the clear teaching of doctrines that had just been repudiated by the Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), the intercession of the dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 5:8; 8:3-4), and the mediating intercession of the angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8; 8:3-4). We know this from Luther’s own statements and those of other Reformers.
10) Luther was not even content to leave things there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible that were accepted as canonical by Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah to be mere fables, and Ecclesiastes to be incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) “did not exist,” and wanted to “throw them into the river Elbe”
11) The New Testament did not fare much better under Luther’s gaze. He rejected from the canon of the New Testament (the “chief books”) Hebrews, James (an “epistle of straw”), Jude, and Revelation, which he placed at the end of his translation as the “Apocrypha” of the New Testament. He judged that they were not apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, “Christ is neither taught nor known in this book.” These opinions are found in Luther’s Prefaces to the biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.
12) Although the New Testament does not directly quote any of these books, it carefully reflects the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 seems to refer to Tobit 12:15:
Revelation 1:4 John …. grace be to you and peace …..from the seven Spirits which are before his throne (see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6)
Revelation 8:3-4 And another Angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the Angel. (see also Revelation 5:8)
Tobit 12:15 I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord.
St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have had 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind: This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult for Protestants to interpret in the New Testament, given their theology.
1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?
2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to keep vigil, pray, and fast for the souls of the dead. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor pointing to affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 12:50). Since those who are in heaven have no need of prayer, and those who are in hell cannot benefit from prayers, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed precisely toward those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead would have no meaning, and this seems to be, by far, what Paul is trying to convey. The “penitential interpretation” is contextually supported by the following three verses, where St. Paul speaks of Why also are we in danger every hour?… I die daily, and so on.
As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 reflects the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:
Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. Others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection.
2 Maccabees 7:29 Fear not this tormentor, but, being made worthy of thy brethren, accept death, that in that mercy (of God) I may receive thee again with thy brethren. {a mother speaking to her son. See 7:25-26}
13) Ironically, in several of the very same verses where the New Testament is virtually quoting the “Apocrypha,” the doctrines that are taught are those rejected by Protestantism, and are the very ones that were the main reason the deuterocanonical books were “downgraded” by them. Consequently, it was not so easy to remove these controversial doctrines from the Bible as was supposed (and is supposed), and Protestants must still contend with data from the New Testament that do not “behave well” with their beliefs.
14) Despite the downgrading of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely kept separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (contrary to the practice prevailing today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, generally describing them (though sub-scriptural) as “useful and good to read.” Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans, kept them in the background. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568) included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 did in fact contain the “Apocrypha.” And up to the present time, many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Version (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others.
15) The deuterocanonical books are read regularly in public worship in Anglicanism, and also among the Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants and Jews fully accept their value as historical and religious documents, useful for teaching, although they deny them full canonical status.
Therefore, it is apparent that the Catholic “side” in favor of these books of Scripture carries very great weight, indeed as much as the Protestant point of view carries little.
Copyright 1996 by Dave Armstrong. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2000 of the Spanish translation by Luis Fernando Pérez.
Translated with the author’s permission
(Bible verses: Douay-Rheims)
Author: Dave Armstrong
Translator: Luis Fernando Pérez
