Deutoromical/Apocryphal books

Good day everyone.

So my husband and I go to different churches and he is Roman catholic. We have been discussing the bible and we want to understand the issue of deutoromical books that catholics and orthodox Churches have in their bible.

We understand they were removed from the Septuagint and considered not inspired the reasoning for this seems to be varied. Some say the manuscripts were discovered after the completion of the Septuagint and some say they are not consistent with the bible message.

Help us understand why they were removed and do we have surety that the early scholars who removed the books were sincere. How do we satisfy ourselves that these were not inspired especially if there seems to have been discoveries of several manuscripts of these apocryphal books.

Thanks in advance.


Hello @Phia great subject to bring up. To gain a better understanding of this we have to look at some things one being the consistency of what the Apocryphal books say and what the rest of the Bible says.

From a quote from the site you can see how they contradict.

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

There are other issues as well such as the fact that the nation of Israel never considered the Apocryphal books as scripture. The Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. excluded the Apocrypha. Jesus never said anything to the Pharisees for not believing in the Apocryphal to our knowledge. In the new testament nowhere do any of the writers quote from the Apocryphal books. Yet numerous times in the new testament you do see quotes from the Old testament. This supports the fact that the jews of the new testament didn’t consider the Apocryphal books scripture. Even non Christian writers have been quoted in the Bible such as Epimenides and Aratus. They were pagan philosophers and poets and others were quoted as well. Now this doesn’t mean Paul believed in paganism but just shows that he had no issues quoting them. If Paul (who used to be a Pharisee) considered the Apocryphal books scripture he definitely would’ve quoted those as well. But nowhere in his writings or the new testament do you see any of them.

This doesn’t mean that he or Jews in general didn’t respect the books but to regard something as God inspired like scripture was something they took very seriously. Here is a article by got questions that gives more about the subject.

God Bless :blush:

1 Like

Thank you so much. It does makes sense that there should be consistency throughout the bible books.


@Phia In addition to @Luna’s excellent response, it is important to remember that even the Catholic Church did not recognize the apocrypha as Scripture until the time of Luther and they only did so as a reaction against the reformation. Throughout most of Christian history it was agreed that the apocrypha were useful for instruction and historical information, but not inspired Scripture. They were still included in various translations of the Bible, but it was generally accepted they were not inspired.

However, at the time of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and the other Protestant reformers, in an attempt to promote their unique beliefs, had to omit certain books from Holy Scripture; the deuterocanonical books, or the Old Testament Apocrypha. They did this for purely doctrinal reasons. In response, the Roman Catholic Church held an official council at the city of Trent which made certain pronouncements about the canon. They stipulated that the deuterocanonical books, or the Old Testament Apocrypha, were indeed part of the canon of Scripture. Anathemas, or divine curses, were directed at those who rejected their pronouncements.

The canon (official content) of the Old Testament was agreed upon around 70 a.d. by Jewish scholars, producing the list of books we now know by the name of “Old Testament.” The celebrated Christian Bible scholar Jerome (c. 330-420 a.d.), based on his careful study of Hebrew (quite original for Christians at that time who were suspicious of Jews) and rabbinic writings, was in full agreement with the accepted Jewish Hebrew canon.

Since the Apocryphal books weren’t to be found in any Hebrew version of the Old Testament, Jerome determined that he would omit most of these extra books from his famous Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, and what material he did include was clearly marked to show that it was not to be found in the original Hebrew manuscripts. His take on these books, which he labeled the Apocrypha (Greek for “hidden” or “concealed” or, as treated by Christians “withdrawn”) was that he considered them “edifying” (in the sense that you or I might think of Pilgrim’s Progress or In His Steps as edifying), but not to be used for establishing doctrine, since they were not inspired Scripture.

Do not have the source for this—but thought it is a helpful summary. Contained in some of my notes.

1 Like