What Is the Apocrypha and Should It Be In the Bible?

You've probably heard of the Apocrypha (also called the Deuterocanonical Books), and have probably heard some opinions about it too. Here are some more.
You can support TMBH on Patreon if you'd like. Look me up at patreon.com/tmbh

[@Kgezella]

As a Catholic Christian I am with you that we (Catholic's and Protestant's) have way more in common than differences. Let us embrace those areas where we agree for the glory of God and Jesus. God Bless you brother. Keep up your ministry.

[@catholicdoctrine]

What the protestants conveniently forget to tell us is that the original 1611 KJV contained 73 books. Later protestants disagreed with each other and decided to label some of the books as 'deuterocanonical' - and that paved the way for the removal of these books. No reason was given as to why these books were deuterocanonical. No wonder there are 10000+ floating protestants who do not agree with each other.

[@torahtrucker]

Protestants are Catholic version 1.2.

[@xxrandmlinksxxbruh2419]

@@catholicdoctrineit’s cheaper to print the Bible without the apocrypha and makes it better to pack around and read

[@alexhay7446]

Amen brother

[@JustAL2004]

@@catholicdoctrineye

[@jorowi]

I really like the twelve-minute, forty-four second Bible hour.

[@DocDodge]

How about his 50 minute one on Romans 13:1-7?

[@brandi8040]

@@DocDodge Haha yes! The one hour Bible hour!

[@minuteman_deacon96]

The jews didn't want the book of enoch or apocrypha cause it actually does reference Jesus as the Messiah

[@alwaysjustjohn]

45 sec

[@alexanderfloyd5099]

Hi, from the future here. You think this is long? Wait until 2021. He does hour long episodes on the regular.

[@destinsandlin745]

lost it at "The wolves are what Gaia is using"

[@himshingyue286]

Fake Destin?

[@nickdixom543]

i thought Gaia was a pagan goddess in Greek mythology known as Terra in Roman Myth

[@ravissary79]

@@nickdixom543 yup, it's a popular religious inclusion in new age environmental spiritual philosophy.

[@clairebeane3455]

That’s where I lost it as well. However, the comments were epic. 😉

[@politereminder6284]

That was smooth 😁

[@svennyzooi]

You stay so humble troughout every video, it's very inspiring! Thanks for making all these, Matt! :)

[@larryg987]

When the student is ready😊...Evidently i come from a different part of the vine but am so grateful for your endeavours. Thank you so much for the series of videos, engaging intelligent and balanced. To echo another commentator, your mom must be pretty proud! God bless you and continue to guide you in this informative and encouraging work.

[@gideonjudges7]

Thanks for being very fair in the video! I would like to point out (along with the NT parallels to the various books in the deuterocanon--three good examples: 2 Maccabees 6-7 and Hebrews 11:35, or Sirach 7.33-34 and Romans 12.15, or the many parallels between Wisdom and Romans [Google it--lot of interesting arguments about it--and there are actually many more of those, where the NT is clearly drawing from the text of one of the books, but just not directly saying, "As it is written in XYZ"]) that we see many things about the Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom in the deuterocanon. (It was actually the main reason I started believing in their inspiration as a Methodist: they, just like the rest of the OT, point to Jesus.) --Wisdom 2 (most clearly vs. 12-20) very clearly talks about the betrayal and execution of the Just Man (the Crucifixion of Jesus--especially compare v 17-18 and Matthew 27.42-43) --Tobit 13 (a hymn in the narrative) talks about the coming of the Kingdom of God, saying, "Acknowledge the Lord, for he is good, and bless the King of the ages, so that his tent may be rebuilt in you in joy. [That is, the Tabernacle/the Temple would be rebuilt among the people--cf. John 1:14, 2:13-22]...A bright light will shine to all the ends of the earth; many nations will come to you from far away, the inhabitants of the remotest parts of the earth to your holy name, bearing gifts in their hands for the King of heaven. [that is, both Jesus, being the Light of the World, drawing all people to Himself; and the light of the star shining in the East, which literally drew the Magi to bear gifts for the King of Heaven]" (13.10,11) --Tobit 14: "God will again have mercy on [the Exiles], and God will bring them back into the land of Israel; and they will rebuild the temple of God, but not like the first one until the period when the times of fulfillment shall come [the Temple would be rebuilt, as it was under Ezra/Nehemiah, but the full glorious Temple, Jesus would come in the fullness of time]. After this they all will return from their exile and will rebuild Jerusalem in splendor; and in it the temple of God will be rebuilt, just as the prophets of Israel have said concerning it. Then the nations in the whole world will all be converted and worship God in truth. They will all abandon their idols, which deceitfully have led them into their error; and in righteousness they will praise the eternal God. [When Jesus did establish the New Temple through the Sacrifice of His Body, this literally happened--within about 300 years, the Gospel was preached throughout the Roman Empire, south into Ethiopia, as far east as India and China. People literally abandoned pagan idolatry to "in righteousness" "praise the eternal God"]" (14.5-7) --And the overarching narrative of the fiction story Tobit mirrors/prefigures the mission of Jesus in a typological way: the only son of his father, goes on a journey eventually to find a bride. He, by the help of an angel, delivers his bride from the power of a demon. His father in law expects him to die in the night, so he has his servants dig a grave. But to his surprise and joy, the son is alive--leaving an empty grave and consummating the marriage. He, his wife, and the angel return to his father, he saves him from blindness, and then the angel ascends into heaven. --the overarching story of Judith (an allegorical retelling of the story of the Maccabean revolt with the image of Judith [feminine form of Jew/Judah] as Israel) mirrors/prefigures Mary's role in our redemption. Like a few other OT women (Jael in Judges; the woman who crushes Abimelech's head with a millstone; Esther, through whose intercession/intervention Haman is hung/impaled through the head), Judith prefigures the fulfillment of the Prophecy in Genesis 3: that a Woman and her Seed (Zerah, Sperma, Semina--offspring, the only time that word is ever used belonging to a woman, as men are the ones with "seed"--a virgin birth) would crush/strike at the head of the serpent and his seed (the devil and death/sin). Over and over again, like those other OT women, it emphasizes that God, "by the hand of a woman" has "cut off the head of the leader of our enemies." (cf. 9, 13, 14) Elizabeth's praise of Mary in Luke 1 (along with mirroring the description of the Ark of the Covenant being moved around in 2 Samuel 6) mirrors the praises given to Judith: "O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all other women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, who created the heavens and the earth, who has guided you to cut off the head of the leader of our enemies. Your praise will never depart from the hearts of those who remember the power of God." (Judith 13.18-19) --Sirach 48, in the big celebration of the heroes of the OT, talks about Elijah's return before the Messiah. --Sirach 36 is a prayer for God to reveal His power to His people/the world again--asking Him to hasten the coming of the Messiah. Among the other important things he prays for in relation to that: "Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name, on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn, Have pity on the city of your sanctuary, Jerusalem, the place of your dwelling. Fill Zion with your majesty, and your temple with your glory. Bear witness to those whom you created in the beginning, and fulfill the prophecies spoken in your name. Reward those who wait for you and let your prophets be found trustworthy." (17-21--the whole prayer is definitely worth looking up) --Both Sirach 51 and 6 have descriptions of God's Wisdom which sound..."familiar": "Draw near to me, you who are uneducated, and lodge in the house of instruction. Why do you say you are lacking in these things, and why do you endure such great thirst? I opened my mouth and said, Acquire wisdom for yourselves without money. Put your neck under [Wisdom's] yoke, and let your souls receive instruction; it is to be found close by. See with your own eyes that I have labored but little and found for myself much serenity." (51.23-27) --Baruch 3.9-4.4 is another Wisdom poem. But this one has a really crazy thing right near the end: "This is our God; no other can be compared to him. He found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to his servant Jacob and to Israel, whom he loved. Afterward [Wisdom] appeared on earth and lived with humankind." (Baruch 3.35-37) Wisdom was to become a man, to appear among us and live with us. --Baruch 4.5-5.9 is all about return from Exile, that God will come to you, "Take courage, my children, cry to God, and he will deliver you from the power and hand of the enemy. For I have put my hope in the Everlasting to save you, and joy has come to me from the Holy One, because of the mercy that will soon come to you from your Everlasting Savior." (4.21-22) God will come to you as your savior, and "Arise, O Jerusalem, stand upon the height; look toward the east, and see your children gathered from west and east at the word of the Holy One, rejoicing that God has remembered them...For God has ordered that every high mountain and the everlasting hills be made low and the valleys filled up, to make level ground, so that Israel may walk safely in the glory of God. The woods and every fragrant tree have shaded Israel at God’s command. For God will lead Israel with joy, in the light of his glory, with the mercy and righteousness that come from him." (5.5, 7-9) Again, like in Tobit, Sirach, etc., God will gather all people back together. God will lead Israel, He will be the King. --There is not a ton in the two Historical Books (1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees--which is to be expected: not a ton of Messianic Prophecy in Ezra or Nehemiah either), but even in them there are a few things: 2 Maccabees 2, it gives an account of what happened to the Ark of the Covenant: Jeremiah took it and hid it right before the destruction of Jerusalem. He stops those who were trying to mark out where he hid them: "The place shall remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. Then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated." (2 Maccabees 2.7-8) And it did. "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev. 11.19-12.1) And "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you [phrasing exactly like the Presence of God overshadowing the Ark]; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God." and "And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?" (Luke 1.35,43, cf. 2 Samuel 6.9). The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books, far from merely being minor supplemental material about Jewish opinions and thoughts around the time of Jesus, have plenty to say about Who Jesus is/what His kingdom would look like. Otherwise, again, thanks for a well presented video!

[@Nomen_Latinum]

All these videos contain a great amount of insight into the Bible and its context. You're quickly becoming my favourite KZbinr, thanks Matt!

[@godskingdomservant3191]

Hey there, I see a cross a heart and an anchor on you. I'm curious to know: what does the anchor symbol means?

[@clairebeane3455]

God's Kingdom Servant It is probably symbolic of time served in the navy. Of course I am not Thijs Douwes so I cannot speak for him but that would be my first guess. It seems symbolic of God, Country and Family, but who am I to determine that?

[@chasej7337]

Armchair theologian perspective: I think it would be good to rely on 2 Peter 1:20 for some perspective on interpretation of the Bible. Interpretation is not a personal matter; what I mean by employing this is that we as individuals do not carry the authority to interpret what books should/should not be in the Bible. It is the Church, the Body of Christ, who has the authority if she is really guided by the Holy Spirit. Regardless of whether or not some denominations reject the 2-fold nature of revelation (Scripture and Tradition), the canon of Scripture is indeed a matter of tradition. Scripture does not contain its own criteria for evaluating what books should/should not be in the canon. The Church has always been the agent in determining this. Just food for thought.

[@johnmay4576]

I find it a real blessing to have 'literally' stumbled onto your KZbin channel. I wonder if you might have any opinions pertaining to the documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essene community, and how (and if) they lend any context to the historical background within which Jesus lived in 1st century Palestine?

[@CesarScur]

Yeah, the debate is not between Romans and Protestants. It is between SOME Protestants (not including Lutero and most reformists) and the Christians (Catholic Apostolic, including Romans but also including ALL Orthodox)

[@Tplan21]

Wow what a great and succinct way to put all that. Best one ive seen so far. Thank you for all that work i’m sure you took to sum it up so well.

[@josueleonel2415]

I´m Catholic, but I loved your explanation, keep doing your videos.

[@delgande]

also they're not in-between, it is spread throughout the old testament fitting within parts that the respective books belong, it is protestants who place them in-between i have a bible in my hand that include maccabees, tobit, and judith within the "historical books" like chronicles and esther, baruch is with the prophets like isaiah and ezekiel, and so on. they are considered normal books, not separated, the separation is what protestant bibles do if they include the apocrypha, either in-between the OT and NT or at the back

[@WolfBenjamite]

One second brother , you said the Apocrypha doesnt mention Jesus? At all? Thats not true my brother?

[@samsmusichub]

This is so informative! Thank you. I've not really heard much about this topic before, so I'm glad I got the rundown!

[@i-jamesazubuike9208]

Thanks Beloved Matt. Learnt a lot from this. God bless you.

[@jg4634-d2y]

Fantastic and balanced video, thank you! I understand that there were about 10 books from the OT that the NT doesn’t reference directly or allude to at all either (in addition to apocryphal books). I think for this reason that argument about why apocrypha wasn’t considered scripture by Jesus or the apostles is moot - interested in anyone else’s take on this.

[@flickering_wick]

I would STRONGLY recommend you read the short book "Which Bible is Better?" by Joseph Gleason. It will blow your mind. Does an amazing job of making it clear how important it is that we use the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. I have not yet come across a single person who can argue against it. Bottom line, Jesus and the disciples undeniably used the Septuagint (including the Apocrypha and so should we).

[@tonyt5609]

I would agree. My dream bible would be something like a Complete Septuagint with prophets and writings w/ Apocrypha and new testament translated with the Textus Receptus.

[@brianteague44]

Definitely agree with you as far as reading those books, it's not gonna hurt your faith in Christ or in God. If anything I just feel it reinforces your faith even more. They are all awesome reads that I strongly feel will bless the person reading em.

[@BirdieSenpai]

For a good while, I was hung up on the numerical errors in the Masoretic text, particularly in Genesis, whereas the Septuagint and other such books get the numbers right, which led me to side more with the Septuagint + Apocrypha and believe each of our Bibles to be incomplete, but I came to understand that a few numbers being off is pretty insignificant when what really matters is the message, the substance, the purpose of what we're reading. Your mentioning the Apocryphal failure to follow the Bible's intention of pointing at Christ in both the Old and New Testaments sealed and solidified that point of view for me. Excellent video! We can look at old books from the time period like the Apocrypha and the Book of Enoch to gain an understanding of historical events and what people talked about and believed throughout them while not considering them the God-breathed inspired Holy Word that points to our Savior. After all, who can stand against and defeat the plans of God? If God was adamant about the Apocryphal books being believed by His people (believers in His Son), no force on Earth or in Heaven could have prevented their retention, right?

[@stevenharder308]

Your final point is precisely why Catholics do retain them, along with the rest of the fullness of the Christian faith, while having none of this nonsense ;)

[@marialarrvillarico-aragon3600]

these are really interesting videos Matt. I like the fact that you make it a point to balance the different perspectives. You remain respectful of what each people believe and follow. God bless you and I hope God continues to guide you in making these amazing content. Sincerely, Not Your Mom ^_^ (but someone from Southeast Asia).

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

Thanks a ton mom (wink; we both know it's you)! I'm honored you found my content halfway around the world.

[@usualfeed2829]

The tone between Catholic and Protestants on your channel is always positive even with all the disagreements, you deserve a lot of credit for even accomplishing that. Beginning at 6:03 though, Protestant friends, the New Testament certainly makes references to the Apocryha. Our Jewish friends can thank Holy Mother Church for preserving Maccabees because John 10:22 makes reference to the "Feast of Dedication". This feast is not found anywhere else in Scripture , but is in the Book of Maccabees. This Feast is what we know today to be Hanukah and when the Temple was cleansed after the Syrians were driven out of it. It was a holy day for Jesus as with all Jews Another thing to consider. The Jews near the Holy land at the time used their authority to reject the books because they were in Greek. Don't forget though they weren't the only Jews. Just as there were Sadducee and Pharisees also having contrasting beliefs, there were Jews in Africa at that time that saw Books like Maccabees as inspired and included it in their Bible. There may even be Christian orthodox churches in Africa that have more Books than the Catholic Bible. My Protestant friends. father Martin Luther was a bad Catholic, he was correct about the corrupt Church during his day as corrupt as it is today, 100%, I would have agreed with him, but Marty wanted to rip out James, Hebrews and the Book of Revelation as well. You have information today at your disposal very few Christians had in the past 2000 years. There's no excuse for being uninformed and ignorant. You're commanded to search for the Truth, you will be accountable like the rest of us for rejecting it. Return to Holy Mother Church, and leave the errors of Luther.

[@rimgrund1]

You make your best point when you mention that Catholics don't need to defend the inspiration of the seven deuterocanonical books (plus parts of Esther and Daniel), because for 1100 years between Augustine's Council of Hippo (ratified by the bishop of Rome), there was no dispute in Christendom about them. Read Sirach 24 if you want Messianic typology, by the way.Luther wanted to reject the books of Maccabees and Tobit particularly because of his dispute about indulgences and "works" and his excuse for doing so was that the Jewish canon did not recognize the Septuagint as inspired. This, even though the Church up to that point had recognized the inspiration of the Septuagint. And, that the rabbinic consensus that rejected the Septuagint did not occur until after any such authority would have passed to the new Israel, the Church of Jesus Christ founded on the new patriarchs, the apostles. Also, the Jewish rejection of the Septuagint was largely based on the Greek being, in places, much more obviously pointed to Jesus Christ as the Messiah than the Hebrew. That rejection was motivated in large part to undermine Christian use of the Scriptures to preach the gospel. Hardly a worthy basis for accepting that rejection 1400 years later.

[@joeydewey1640]

martin Luther believed that it is very important to stick to the most original version of the old testament possible, so adopted the old testament as it existed with european jews in the 1500s. However he mistakenly thought this was the earliest version of the OT when it wasnt. durimg that time in the jewish diaspora there was a strong movement to remove anything that was not originally written in hebrew. so all books written during the hellenistic period in Greek were omitted. the septuagint which jesus and the apostles quote is the version that all jews in the area at the time of christ would have been reading.

[@PracticalBibleStudies]

I think everybody should read the apocryphal books. If anything, just because they are good reads.

[@carl-catholicmusic-english3039]

The Deuterocanonical (Or Protestants say Apocrypha) books were in the Jewish Septuagint for centuries and were considered inspired books by the Jews. The Dueterocanon was in the Septuagint during the time of Christ and there was no controversy as to its inspiration. The Deuterocanon was quoted by countless Church fathers with the assumption that it was inspired. The New Testament has many examples of parallel quotes from the Deuterocanonical books. What Protestants don't understand is that Martin Luther and John Calvin threw the Deuterocanon out of the Protestant Bible. They adopted the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text came from unbelieving Talmudic Jews who threw out the Dueterocannon from the Septuagint because the Church Fathers were using the Dueterocannon to powerfully prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Unbelieving Talmudic Jews removed the Dueterocanon because they did not like the fact that there are many powerful messianic passages that show that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. So John Calvin and Martin Luther by adopting the Masoretic Text ended up agreeing with unbelieving Talmudic Jews in the formation of the Protestant Canon. The other reason the Talmudic Jews did not like the Dueterocannon is that the Book of Maccabees shows that the Church replaced Israel as the New Covenant people of God. The Book of Maccabees is the history of the intertestamental period between the Old and New Testament. Maccabees gives very detailed historical accounts that show the Jews had the kingdom taken from them and given to the Church which is the New Israel of God. The Book of Maccabees establishes the doctrine of Preterism. So Protestants only ended up hurting themselves by removing these books. Perhaps we would not have the heresy of Dispensationalism which is so rampant in Protestant and Evangelical Churches if these books had not been removed. You only end up hurting your own religion when you assume you have the authority to throw out books you don't like. John Calvin and Martin Luther are the fountainheads of higher criticism in the Protestant and Evangelical world. Because once you assume you have the authority to throw out the books you don't like it's only one step further to assume you can throw out other books and passages you don't like as well. The really big problem for the Protestants is the claim that the Bible belongs to them at all. The canon of the Bible came over about an 800 year period from the Church Fathers and Church Councils.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

Luther didn't remove anything. When people say that he did you know they didn't do their homework. Jerome rejected the catholic apocrypha and flat out said they were not part of the canon. Also, he did say that those books and he specifically mentions; Judith, Tobit, 1,2 Maccabees and says they can be read for edification but not for doctrine. And right here you've listed at least two doctrines coming from Maccabees. Lastly, we haven't thrown any books out. They were never considered canonical in the first place. However if you want to talk about adding to Gods word, the rcc does that and are proud of it. In the Douay Rheims version of the bible it added the word penace 50x. Whats that about? Then we can talk about doctrines and dogmas created 100's if not 1000,s of years later.

[@jesusfaith2232]

@@ContendingEarnestly well said

[@michellecousinohettrick2077]

I came upon your videos only yesterday and loved each one. As a Roman Catholic, I respected the way you presented faiths and teachings. Awesome! I've read the Old Testament 4 times and can't get enough of returning to do it again. The NT even more times. As far as the apocrypha books, I'm a person who loves historical information. For me, these books fill in gaps of time, as well as other outstanding ordeals that the people of Israel had to endure. Maccabees 1 and 2 really fill in the blanks, aligning, for me, other historical timelines, though not perfectly, but close enough. All of it has added to help bring my faith closer to God. The endurance of the people, over long periods of time, with great faith, fight their way, one way or another, to overcome evil. I'd ask anyone, knowing we, as human beings, learn from history, how can we reject the history, which leads us to our faith in Christ Jesus? Sure, we can love and bear a strong unshakable faith in God without it, but the rich history only adds to our knowledge of God's chosen race. Highly intriguing!

[@terencejackson7092]

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[@cjr4497]

Martin Luther didn't like the concept of purgatory, praying for the dead, and the idea of penance which all come from the Aprocrypha. That is why it is out. It is that simple. There was nothing more to it. He also wanted to take James out of the New Testament because it directly contradicted his "faith alone" mantra. He wasn't able to pull it off though. That pretty much sums it up. No need for the fluff. I don't know why protestants try to justify it beyond that. It is all there in history for everyone to know. The people closest to Jesus's time probably knew better what should and shouldn't have been in the Bible. Not people today or people that came 1500 years later.

[@SNS-f6g]

Let me correct you if you don't mind. For direct references: I suggest you read Sirach 28 compared to one of the petitions of the Lord's Prayer. Or how about 2 Maccabees 7 compared to Hebrews 11:35 ? or Tobit 3:8 compared to Mark 12:18-22? or Wisdom 2:18 compared to Matthew 27:39-43? Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.” The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint-over 300 times. In fact. the Septuagint canon is used more than 80% of the times in the New Testament over the Masoretic canon. Without an authoritative Church they can trust, how do Protestants know what's in the canon and what isn't? The Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul famously suggested that the best we can say is that the canon of Scripture is "a fallible list of infallible books." It's fallible because, from Sproul's point of view, the Church that pronounced the canon had no real authority. But if a non-authoritative group of Christians in the third and fourth centuries could decide what the canon of Scripture was, then why couldn't another non-authoritative group of Christians do the same today? For example, in 2013, Hal Taussig, a member of a group of skeptical scholars called the Jesus Seminar, published a collection called A New New Testament. Added to the traditional New Testament were second-century apocryphal gospels such as "The Gospel of Truth," as well as texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls like "The Thunder: Perfect Mind." Most Protestants would never accept such books as part of the Bible, but what authority do they have to say someone like Taussig is wrong? After all, 500 years ago, Martin Luther and other reformers made their own tweaks to the canon. Luther called the letter of James "an epistle of straw" because it contradicted his theology of justification by faith alone (James 2:24 says, for example, that we are not justified by faith alone). Although that letter remained in the Bible, Luther and the other Reformers did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament, and they are still absent from Protestant bibles. How can Protestants denounce Taussig's alteration of the canon without undermining the Reformers' decision to alter the canon in the sixteenth century? The deuterocanonical books were considered inspired Scripture for centuries until Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther jettisoned them because they taught doctrines that conflicted with their novel theology. (The most famous example would be 2 Maccabees 12:46, which teaches the efficacy of praying for the dead in order to atone for their sins.) If protestants want to follow the canon of the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, then why do they even bother to either accept the canonical Gospels rejected by the jews, or even accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?

[@thepickle5214]

As a Protestant I think I'm gonna read it now

[@williamarends7138]

The original King James Bible Translation included the Apocrypha. Thus the Apocrypha can be found in the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition as well. Luther translated many of the Apocryphal books in his original German translation of the Bible regardless of his opinion of individual Apocryphal books or any particular collection of those books. Without the Apocrypha there is a blank page representing 400 years of history, traditions, and religious development. The Apocrypha does not cover all that time period but does help fill that gap in part. The main problem with the Apocryphal books is that they were either not originally written or had a version available in Hebrew to the translators and theologians of the late middle ages and the Reformation time periods. That fact gave this collection of books a lower value both in Judaism and Christianity, and allowed some parts of the Christian community to reject them altogether. I contend and conclude, as did the English translators of 1609, that there is real historical and religious value to be found in these books and that as in all things inclusion is preferable to exclusion.

[@DivineMercyFarmstead]

If I remember correctly, the New Testament does reference a part of Maccabees talking about a mother whose sons were tortured. Anyone know what I’m talking about?

[@TheMadman911xx]

Hebrews 11:35, 35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life. Quoting 2 Maccabees 7

[@lostinAR]

As a Catholic turned Protestant this is one of the issues I wrestled with a lot. I have read the Apocrapha and find them interesting and they do have value, however they are not scripture. Here's what it comes down to for me, 1) The Deuterocanonical books contain known historical errors, contradictions and legendary material (i.e the age of Tobit among others). Therefore, they cannot be the inerrant, inspired Word of God. 2) Jews never considered these books divinely inspired and they have never been part of Jewish Canon. At the time of Christ, Josephus wrote that they were only 22 books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our 39 in the OT, none are from the Apocrypha. These are the books Jesus and the Apostles would have recognized as scripture. The claim that Jesus and the Apostles considered the Apocrypha as scripture is unverifiable and historical unlikely. Their inclusion in some (later) version of the Septuagint is not evidence of devine inspiration. 3) Teachings are found in the Deuterocanonical that contradict well established doctrines in the universally accepted scripture. For instance, Tobit 12:9 says "For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin." This is in direct conflict with the fundamental doctrine of salvation by grace found in such inspired passages as Eph 2:8-9, "For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works, so that no one may boast." This kind of critical contradiction of an essential doctrine of the faith cannot be part of the inspired, inerrant Work of God.

[@joecastillo8798]

What you call APOCHRIFA, were never "hidden" for us. They were always part of the Canon from the time of Christ. The Council of Rome of 382 AD, headed by Pope Damasus, produced the first Bible that included the Deuterocanonical books. Luther is the one who put them into question but kept them at the end of his rearranged bible. It wasn't until 1825 when they were removed by the European Bible Society.

[@ondacross5253]

2 Maccabees references prayers to the dead and is one reason Protestants removed it. Isn't removing it though a conflict with Jesus saying that God is the god of the living not the dead, and to God all are alive? Isn't this saying that God is the god of the living and defining "god of the living" without including the dead?

[@greenbank4800]

I am not Catholic or Orthodox and I find much wisdom and history in the Apocrypha , they are worthy of a read to enrich one's understanding of history and faith, even if one is a Protestant.

[@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG]

They're not just good for history. They literally prophesy Jesus in the most incredible way I've ever seen in my life. Wisdom of Solomon, 2:12-20: (WEB) 12 But let’s lie in wait for the righteous man, because he annoys us, is contrary to our works, reproaches us with sins against the law, and charges us with sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous to us even to look at, because his life is unlike other men’s, and his paths are strange. 16 We were regarded by him as something worthless, and he abstains from our ways as from uncleanness. He calls the latter end of the righteous happy. He boasts that God is his father. 17 Let’s see if his words are true. Let’s test what will happen at the end of his life. 18 For if the righteous man is God’s son, he will uphold him, and he will deliver him out of the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let’s test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and test his patience. 20 Let’s condemn him to a shameful death, for he will be protected, according to his words.”

[@Cayden356]

I just learned about this, personally I'm getting the feeling that it's not NECESSARY, but, I do think that I should read it sometime (I am a Christian)

[@kennethtaylor5004]

Objectively, the New Testament repeatedly quotes and alludes to the Deuterocanon. One of the more famous examples is James 1:19, which sounds very much like Sirach 5:11.

[@billschrader5139]

By what Authority were the books of the OT and NT selected? And by whom?

[@kelleyturner2238]

I am going to check it out myself.

[@willnichols6470]

When he said four letter word I started counting the letters in Islam xD

[@outdoorokie5372]

I am a lutheran, I have read the the apocrypha. To me the apocrypha is to contradictory.

[@merlothorse8044]

Awesome video love this channel !!! ✝️

[@DocDodge]

Thanks Matt. I watched three of this series to get a good look at the manatee trophy. It’s place of prominence on your desk speak grandly towards its meaning to you. As would anything that I have from those closest to me.

[@ElCaballoTV]

THIS was the best overview of the Apocrypha - well, until the end, Chick Tracts says there are geographical mistakes in Tobit and Maccabees shows more than Jesus can come back to life.

[@walterabeyta733]

I like your style matt. Just subbed

[@jeyoungryou3585]

Thanks for the video. I think this is a pretty fair representation of both sides of the argument. As a Protestant, I would like to point out that the Tanakh, or the Hebrew Bible, does not include the Apocrypha. Seeing the Hebrew Bible/Protestant Old Testament is thought to have been codified as early as the time of the Hasmonean dynasty (140-37BC), I think it is reasonable to argue that Jesus and the Apostles may have regarded the Apocrypha as not a part of scripture. Even if the Tanakh was only later codified during the 2nd Century AD among the Jews, as debated by other scholars, I think this would still show what was and was not to go into the Bible was still being debated during the time of Jesus, and thus make a case for exclusion.

[@Ramendez93]

Get a copy of the 1611 version of the King James Bible. Protestants had the Apocrypha printed in the Bible.

[@Adriang.carballoliinc]

There are many non Catholic Christians that accept the 'apocrypha.' Start with the meaning of 'apocrypha.' Didn't Jesus quote or speak about Enoch? And a council of the Church is man made, not God made. Book of Enoch has nothing to do with Jewish Church as far as I can tell... Maybe a review of all the books in the apocrypha would be interesting? Thanks your video sparked my interest further! Thank you!

[@Hannahdealer8180]

Hi Matt, I'm new to this. Do you think the apocrypha would threaten the sacred nature of the Holy Bible? That's my main concern, not so much whether it's "necessary" or not.

[@sudek7252]

Everyone agrees that these books are helpful, but Protestants think that it still shouldn’t be in the canon

[@henryjordan9453]

Ive read the apocrypha books im of the option they should be included, messiah quotes from some of these books

[@HickoryDickory86]

Re: 5:58 = Strongly disagree. There are plenty of references/allusions to, as well as some quotes from, the Apocrypha and other Second Temple literaure. Here's one that I find quite striking: Grieving in Gethsemane over Judas' betrayal and his coming passion, Jesus tells the other disciples, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (Matthew 26:38). Compare that with Sirach 37:1-2, "Every friend saith, I am his friend also: but there is a friend, which is only a friend in name. Is it not a grief unto death, when a companion and friend is turned to an enemy?" Also, the origin of the Feast of Dedication (i.e., Hanukkah, see John 10) is recounted in 1 Maccabees 4:36ff. "He hath put down the mighty from their seats, And exalted them of low degree" (Luke 1:52) strongly parallels, "The Lord hath cast down the thrones of proud princes, and set up the meek in their stead" (Sirach 10:14). And this might sound familiar, "He will take zeal as his armor, and he will make creation a weapon for vengeance against his enemies. He will put on righteousness as a breastplate and wear impartial judgment as a helmet. He will take holiness as an unconquerable shield and sharpen his severe wrath into a sword, and the world will fight with him against those with no sense." (Wisdom of Solomon 5:17-20) Also, compare Tobit 12:12, 15, "Now therefore, when thou didst pray, and Sara thy daughter in law, I did bring the remembrance of your prayers before the Holy One: [. . .] I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels [the seven archangels], which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One." With Hebrews 1:14, "Are they [the angels] not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" With Revelation 5:8, "And when he took the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one of whom had a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." And especially with Revelation 8:2-4, "And I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. And another angel who had a golden censer came and stood at the altar, and a large amount of incense was given to him, in order that he could offer the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar that is before the throne. And the smoke of the incense went up before God with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel." There's more, this is just a good starter. All that aside, however, making the argument that "that can't be Scripture because it's not quoted or cited in Scripture" is an extreme case of _begging the question._ You cannot assume and/or take for granted the very thing that's being questioned, i.e., the canon of Scripture. That's why Christian history and Church tradition _must_ be taken into account. As it is, the Lord Jesus did not entrust the gospel or the Scripture to the academy. Rather, he left them to "the house of God, which is the church of the living God," and _it_ is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). What the Church in history received as Scripture is no trifling piece of evidence than can so easily be handwaved away. In fact, it should be the weightiest piece of evidence on this topic, as it is the Church, which is itself "the pillar and ground of the truth," that preserved said Scripture in the first place, and decided its canon. While various Church Fathers had different lists, and some synods accepted some books that others rejected, the canon was eventually ecumenically decided (independently by both the Catholics in the West and the Orthodox in the East). For the Catholics, it was settle at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), and that in direct refutation of the Protestant Reformers adopting the Jewish canon over and against the canon that had been received by the Christian Church for 1500 years. For the Orthodox, it was similarly settled with the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), also in refutation of the Protestant/Jewish canon as well as confronting some Protestant and Catholic heresies. This synod has ecumenical reception among all the Orthodox jurisdictions as well, meaning it has the import of an ecumenical council for the Orthodox even if it formally is not one. It should be noted, also, that the canon of Scripture that was upheld by the Catholics at Trent and the Orthodox at Jersualem is more or less identical to the canon of Scripture approved and set forth by the Synod of Carthage all the way back in AD 397. The Bible, with the Apocrypha/Deuteroncanonical books, is the Bible that was received by the historical Church, largely by way of the Septuagint, from the beginning. So, yes, it is incumbent upon the Protestants to justify why, all of a sudden, these books which the Church had decided for ages as Scripture, no longer are so and should be cast aside in favor of the shorter canon favored by those who had rejected and still do reject Christ, the One who established the Church and made it "the pillar and ground of the truth."

[@jordanmessengerforchrist]

Ok what about 2nd Edras/4th Ezra idk if it is Apochrapha or not, but do you think it is scriptural or inspired? Because it does point to Jesus, Revelations, ext. It's prophetic and stuff soo what do you think??

[@chrise438]

Thanks, I think you explained it very well!

[@tabandken8562]

The Deuterocanonical books do not prophecy Jesus? What's this? Wisdom 2:12 Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us; he opposes our actions, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. 13He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD. 14To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, 15Because his life is not like that of others, and different are his ways. 16He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father. 17Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end. 18For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. 19With violence and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.” 21These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, You also need to research that bit about Jesus quoting the Deuterocanonical books more.

[@Peterseanesq]

Concerning the claim that no council affirmed the deuterocanonical book, you must know that the Orthodox accept the those books. In addition, those books were affirmed as part of the canon by Augustine and by the Council of Florence in 1442,i.e., before the Reformation, in the Bull of Union with the Copts, who were an Orthodox church that accepted the deuterocanonical books. "Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament - that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel - since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John." Ecclesiasticus and Sirach are the most Christological books of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books had been accepted by the Catholic Church before Luther and Luther knew it.

[@woollyzizi2356]

Am a member of THE FIRST CHURCH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST WITH PASTOR GINO JENNINGS Our bible have 82 books,including the Apocrypha .In the book of Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 reference or the book of Jasher are mention or quoted so why are the books not found in the 66 books bible? So the Apocrypha is part of the bible. The catholics took who could not interpret the bible as they are so busy with the false doctrine of holy mary,remove books from the bible.Thank God we have them. Anyone who needs and bible with 82 books,contact OUR CHURCH.

[@villarrealmarta6103]

When Jesus read from the Septuagint he never complained about the apocrypha. So why should we?

[@outtabubblegum3161]

Just so everyone knows most old Bibles had the Apocrypha it's not a Catholic thing it was actually a Bible thing. I have at least a dozen Bibles ranging from 1560 to 1971 and they all contain the Apocrypha. Without the Apocrypha it's impossible to understand the rest of the Bible. If you're looking for more insight into the true meaning of the Bible you should read the Aramaic Palestinian Targums.

[@TomLandry1]

Matt, Wolves ARE cool!!! LOL!!! As always, I APPRECIATE the generally civil tone of your videos!! I hope to respond equally civilly - but please let me apologize IN ADVANCE if I fall short of that goal!! LOL!!! I think some of your video here is reasonably fair, and you present some of the popular arguments and “common knowledge” arguments about the deuterocanonical books. (And like Most arguments based on "common knowledge", they aren't completely accurate.....) BUT - May I offer a different perspective? I am a simple person, and when I face big questions I find it very useful to boil them down to SIMPLE propositions - so here we go: SIMPLE QUESTION! WHO should decide what is in the Christian Bible? Christians or Jews? Since the First Century, the Catholic Church has fallen on the side of the Christians, and more specifically, the Apostles. More on that in a moment. BUT - In the 16th Century, Martin Luther, for a variety of reasons, reached the opposite conclusion. He rejected the Canon of the OT that the Catholic Church had accepted unofficially since the time of Christ, and officially since the 4th Century, and instead adopted the then-current Jewish canon of the OT, also known as the Masoretic text. There are doubtless several reasons for his decision to do this, But at least part of the motivation was undoubtedly Luther’s abiding (but delusional) belief that the Jews would ALL convert to Lutheranism once they realized that he had created a new and “perfected” religion. Of course, that didn’t happen, leading to some really ugly things in the latter half of Luther’s life - but I digress. Sidenote - did you know that Martin Luther also WANTED to remove Seven (7) books from the New Testament? - (thankfully) the push back from his benefactors (the German Princes) and from other “Reformers” was strong enough to prevent this. Luther’s disdain for the “Catholic Epistles” (and particularly for the Epistle of Saint James) is legendary and well documented! AND it is completely understandable, as these books pretty seriously contradict Luther’s new religious dogmas. NOW, Back to our story!!! Why did the Catholic Church side with the Apostles instead of the Jews? And how can I even SAY such a thing, or back it up? Glad you asked! First, some context! When we talk about “The Jews” of the First century, or any time for several centuries prior - this is a bit of a misnomer. “The Jews” THEN were every bit as fragmented then as “the Christians” are TODAY! We see in the Gospels the interplay between the two most prominent Jewish sects in Jerusalem in the First Century - the Pharisees and the Sadducees. We know from the Bible that these two sects had some SIGNIFICANT theological disagreements! And we know from History that they didn’t accept the same “Canon” of Scripture. Well guess what? the Pharisees and the Sadducees weren’t the ONLY Two “Sects” among Jews! There were several others not mentioned in the Bible, and among the MANY disagreements between them - there were significant disagreements about what books WERE or WERE NOT “Scripture”. In fact, most Jewish scholars today agree that there was no “Consensus” among Jews about the “Canon” of the Jewish “bible” (what we call the OT) until about the 10th-11th century AD! We also know from secular History that there was a significant Jewish population in Egypt before and through the first century. And, subsequent to its conquest by Alexander the Great, Egypt was ruled by a dynasty of Greek KINGS for many centuries, AND the official language of Egypt was GREEK. One such Greek king of Egypt, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, decided In about the 3rd century BC that the Jewish “Scriptures” really SHOULD be Translated into the “Vernacular” (sound familiar?) so Egyptian Jews who no longer (or perhaps never did) speak Hebrew could understand them. The “vernacular” of that day? You guessed it! Koine Greek. Ptolomy II commissioned a group of seventy scholars to create the Greek Translation, and the document they produced was known as “The Seventy” - or in Latin: The Septuagint. So what has that got to do with the Apostles? Well, we know from SCHOLARLY RESEARCH that the Apostles relied heavily on the Septuagint when writing the NT. HOW could we know such a thing? Because scholars tell us that about 70% of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint. So, that kinda destroys any argument that Jesus (or His Apostles) opposed the Septuagint, don't ya think? The translation of the Septuagint from Hebrew into Greek continued for Centuries into the Second Century AD, and over time the translation expanded, eventually growing to about 49-50 Books. But from History we know that in the First Century, when the Apostles were writing the NT, the Septuagint was 46 Books. Which 46 books? SPOILER - The Same 46 the Church has ALWAYS considered part of the Bible!!! It’s a fact of history that (Despite Saint Jerome’s objections) the Church has consistently recognized the Deuterocanonical books as part of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible at all times since the Canon of the Bible was first set by Pope Damasus I at the Council of Rome in 382 AD (and reaffirmed at various other councils in the same era). And regarding St. Jerome: remember, we love the Church Fathers and we respect their opinions, but no single Church Father IS the Church. It’s a plain fact of History and beyond debate that these books WERE included in the earliest Latin Vulgate Bibles. And even the FIRST Edition of the King James Bible includes them! So - IN SUMMARY - while we can make a TON of “Great” arguments about why we should or should not respect these books, at the end of the day, ALL these arguments are just “Post Hoc Rationalizations”. (Sorry!) BOTTOM LINE: The same “body” that gave us the canon of the NT that ALL Christians today accept, is ALSO the SAME “Body” that gave us the canon of the Old Testament that ALL Christians accepted for some 15 centuries. And that “Body” is the Catholic Church. Hope this helps! God Bless!

[@xXxJonnyLavaxXx]

I had a discussion with the Mayor of my city (who is Catholic, and a snazzy dresser) on Reformation Day last year. He was using line that we as Protestors are sinning because we removed books from God's scripture. We debated the inspiration of the Apocryphal texts and when we couldn't agree. I wanted to break it down to common ground as believers and I asked him "Do you believe that salvation is given to us by Grace through Faith alone?" Unfortunately I recieved no answer back after that question.🙁

[@astrol4b]

Because the answer was no. Check some videos of bishop Barron on reformation, luther and council of Trent (also an interview with Ben Shapiro) he explain well the differences, however long story short Catholics believe in salvation trough love, which include faith, works, Grace etc.

[@MrMiz1113]

Not the mayor of your town but I’m Catholic and will answer. Yes, but not in the same manner that Protestants do. Put simply, there’s 2 major acts of totally unmerited grace at work in every Christian. The first is that no individual, nor humanity as a whole, had any claim upon God to provide us with a Savior; that was totally the unmerited Grace of God. Second, no person has ever or can ever have enough faith or good works to merit the Grace of forgiveness of sins and adoption that comes from being born again in water and spirit via baptism. Again, the totally unmerited Grace of God. In point of fact, Catholicism’s view of people and our relationship to God prior to baptism is very similar to that of most Protestants, at least as far as I can tell. However, where we part ways is in what happens after Baptism. At that point, we’re a new creation but we also have duties. Faith alone, without love, without hope and without works, will not be adequate to maintain justification. It isn’t a once and always event, it’s a process of growing in holiness.

[@Murph_gaming]

So if you're a nerd: End of OT-Revenge of the Sith, The Apocrypha-Rogue One?, New Testament-A New Hope?

[@KonradSeverinHilstad]

We have the same discussion about wolves here in Norway! Haha

[@stjoelawyer]

I disagree with your analysis. Just because they are messianic does not mean that they are not part of the Bible and sacred scripture. If I’m remembering correctly the orthodox also use them as do some of the Coptic Church is from Egypt and in the orient. They were used well before the Council of Trent. The protestants, led by Martin Luther, and other protestant reformers remove them because they did not support their viewpoints

[@Jontrondheimpoulsen]

Great video. A side note: Luther DID like the Apocrypha - he even included it in his own Bible-translation. However, he didn't consider them canonical - but as good books for christian to read.

[@duckmeat4674]

One of the reasons he didn't include them was because the dead sea scrolls weren't found at that time, however as they were found with the apocrypha, there is no reason not fot it to be part of the bible as it is with the three most traditional churches the Coptic's, EO, and catholic

[@nosuchthing8]

Luther didn't like those books. Convincing. And if Luther was a murderer and decided he didn't like the commandment about killing and removed it from his Bible, you would be OK with that?

[@MrSupdup]

@@nosuchthing8 I think you misread. Luther *DID* like the Apocrypha. He didn't consider them canonical in the same way as the other books of the OT, but he translated them into German, and published them in his bible. He said all Christians should read them.

[@nosuchthing8]

@@MrSupdup Luther tossed them out of the Canon and he knew that would lead to them being removed from the bible of course. He wanted to get rid of corruption in the catholic church, so he threw the baby out with the bathwater when he removed the books that implied purgatory.

[@cpnlsn88]

The first Protestant Bibles, certainly in English and German included the Apocrypha. It's a false argument. Most Christians don't read large parts of the Old Testament in any case. Include them in the Bible and let people read or study them if they have value. Martin Luther thought the Apocrypha were useful and good to read. He was right.

[@ChrisHendricks]

It was only a few years ago that I, as a Protestant, finally got around to reading the Apocrypha in a Catholic Bible. And while I feel comfortable in the Protestant reasons for not including it in the Bible, I do find a great deal to appreciate in it: - 1 & 2 Maccabees fill in that 400 year gap between Malachi and Matthew well, and help to explain the significance of Hanukkah and, indirectly, the origins of the Pharisees and other Jewish groups at the time of Jesus. - Do you enjoy Proverbs? Then you'll like pretty much all of Sirach. While it doesn't claim to be the voice of God on earth, it does contain very good advice and insight into the mind of the wise people around the time of the Maccabees. - Esther's additions are pretty neat, and do tend to add to the emotional weight of the story (though they do tend to make the focus of the book more on Mordecai, which is a shame) If you haven't read them before, but have read the rest of the Bible frequently, I encourage you to check the Apocrypha out.

[@mosesking2923]

It’s not a question of merely “including” them or not. It’s a question whether they are the infallible, Holy Spirit inspires words of God. Because if they are, the Protestants have committed arguably one of the greatest sins in the Bible. And as it stands, the Protestants are on the loosing end of this argument. Rev 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

[@skepticalfaith5201]

Moses King Your argument cuts both ways. You may think they were removed, but protestants think they were added. Personally, as a protestant charismatic, I believe that they should be included. A better argument is that they should be included along with the version of the OT from the septuagint. The reason is that around 100AD the jews _who had rejected Jesus_ corrupted the Hebrew scripture to dilute the gospel message in it. This included removing the apocrypha.

[@danielu.4957]

@Chris how about if we take into account the history of christianity before our opinions on wether the books should be on the bible? This is not a XXI century issue. Early christians know better than the current generation, as apostles knew better than anyone could of Jesus.

[@fernandoalarcon8534]

@@mosesking2923 I believe the whole Rev 22:18 about removing or adding is to the specific book of Rev.

[@amiretosin]

@@fernandoalarcon8534 You're very much right about this Fernando, we tend to read our of context sometimes.

[@NovelistVampireGirl]

A few thoughts from an Eastern Orthodox Christian and former Protestant. 1st of all, We use those books too, which should automatically disprove the argument that Catholics never affirmed those books as scripture until the council of Trent because if they hadn't been scripture at the time of the Great Schism (the event where Catholics and Orthodox went their separate ways) which was in 1054 almost 500 years before Luther, they wouldn't be in our Bibles and yet they are. Further on this point the Oriental or Coptic Orthodox Church, which was isolated from the rest of the church for a very, very long time from quite early on until basically the modern Era, also uses them, in fact, they use an even older canon that has more books that we and Catholics have. 2. We need to understand what Trent was, the council of Trent was the RCC essentially trying to figure out which complaints (if any) being made by Protestants at the time, pointed to actual heresy within the Church, "is there anything we need to fix?" is basically what they were asking themselves, and the inclusion of the Apocrypha was deemed to be a non-issue and reaffirmed at Trent, as were many other things.

[@monkiram]

As an Oriental Orthodox Christian, I agree with your comment. The deuterocanonical books have always been a part of our canon.

[@JRMusic933]

Just by you having it doesn't really prove the point. Your arguement falls well within the explanation that he presents here

[@charleskelbley385]

As a (Roman) Catholic, I concur with the fact that our Orthodox brethren's use of the Apocrypha is proof of the validity of the Councils of Nicea-Constantinople in the 4th century. Christ quoted the Apocrypha several times in his teachings, as well as in his corrections of the Jewish leaders. To claim that there never was a great approval of the Apocrypha, and only by local groups, shows ignorance of Church history. The Jewish leaders removed those books from their scriptures after 70 A.D. because the early Christians quoted these books so often in defense of Jesus as the Christ. To reject the Apocrypha is to deliberately escape the truths found in the Catholic/Orthodox Churches. Only these Churches can claim that Christ started their Church. (We need a permanent family reunion!) A better study of history is needed for the masses.

[@JRMusic933]

@@charleskelbley385 check out James Whites debate on the Apocrypha.

[@Bjt5081]

@@JRMusic933 i dont believe james white was around when the early Christians were deciding what books should be in the bible.

[@annasophia6311]

I just discovered your series of videos. I can see why your Mom would be impressed. Keep up the good work.

[@Cjinglaterra]

The deuterocanon (apocrypha) doesn't actually come _between_ the Old and New Testaments for the most part. Tobit and Judith are between Nehemiah and Esther, then the remains or Esther get put back on, then fast forward to the end of Song of Solomon and you add the Book of Wisdom and Sirach before coming to Isaiah. Baruch goes between Lamentations and Ezekiel, then Daniel comes and you put the missing parts back in. The only parts that actually can be said to come between are the books of the Macabees, which are also the only ones that, in my opinion ought to be of any controversy at all between Catholics and Protestants. The rest fit right in with the whole with nary a ripple. Disclaimer: I'm an Anglican.

[@GODBLESSES]

Read Tobias rather than Tobit.

[@GODBLESSES]

Read Book of Tobias not Tobit.

[@Lorrainecats]

Thanks for this information.

[@carlose4314]

@@GODBLESSESTobias is the Greek name of Tobit

[@unafides9569]

The most clear and vivid prophecy of Jesus is from the book of Wisdom. This is much more explicit than the prophet Isaiah as to what would happen to our Savior: Wisdom 2:12 Let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness, and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

[@hervedavidh4117]

This comment is underrated ...

[@trentitybrehm5105]

Wow that's cool

[@jasonpratt5126]

Incidentally, it isn't only the RCs who think the extra LXX books should be in there. So do the Eastern Orthodox, the other largest Christian group in Christian history.

[@jasonpratt5126]

Also, there's a _little_ appeal made to the Apocrypha in the NT. The most obvious and famous is the dispute over the body of Moses in the little epistle from Jude. That appears to be referencing the book of Enoch; but there are some midrash changes in Jude, so there isn't a direct quotation and the author might be making reference to another floating version of the story (or, if you prefer, providing an inspired correction for the details). Craig Evans, if I recall correctly, has a book somewhere on extra-canonical references in the NT, and he includes topical or thematic references to the Apocrypha along the way. If I was slightly less lazy I'd hop downstairs to the library and pull it out. {wry g}

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

+Jason Pratt Agreed, but again that's a reference to 1st Enoch (which isn't in the RC list), so doesn't really apply to the discussion about the Apocrypha. There's also a brief reference to something that could be construed as talking about the same stuff as 1st maccabees.

[@jasonpratt5126]

Ah, good point, I keep forgetting 1 Enoch isn't in the LXX. This is what I get for being slightly too lazy, lol!

[@IamGrimalkin]

Actually nowadays according to surveys there are more Pentacostals than Eastern Orthodox Christians. True, they aren't a unified group, but Eastern Orthodoxy isn't 100% unified either (not in the same way Roman Catholicism is).

[@jasonpratt5126]

The EOx are significantly more unified than Pentacostals are, however. {g} Also, the studies I've seen on Pentacostal numbers have tended to conflate Pentacostal numbers with charismatic numbers (at least when those studies are run by Pentacostals!) About 25% of Christians worship in, or belong to, charismatic congregations or groups. (Including among the RC and EOx, who have special groups focusing on charismatic worship. Both branches would probably classify themselves as the original charismatics, too, the EOx perhaps moreso than the RCs.) Pentacostals per se constitute 4%, although I don't recall whether that's from the absolute estimated total of Christians or from the 25% charismatic. All Pentacostals are of course charismatic, but not all charismatics (by a lonnnng shot) are Pentacostals.

[@Ixen08Gaming]

Speaking of Wolves, there is a really interesting TED talk about when they removed all the wolves from an area in Yellowstone and it literally destroyed the ecology of the area until they re-introduced them.

[@solovief]

Hi Matt, Bill here. I saw your video about books that didn't make the cut in the Bible and also this video. I'm Catholic. I think you did a great job trying to fairly present our reasons for our views on the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha. I appreciate your openness to just sharing information without demonizing and labeling each other. I think it's important that we celebrate the common ground where God has revealed it to us, but to also enthusiastically embrace our differences as we all strive for truth. May God ultimately reveal his perfect will to us all. God bless, Bill in Tampa

[@m.e4752]

❤👏

[@ArcticMayhem]

I just love reading the comments on your videos Matt. It's really refreshing to see people discussing their different opinions rationally and respectfully. You really set the tone for civilized discussions in your videos. Thanks for making great content and keep up the good work.

[@serenawingrove8955]

i was thinking the same thing lol people always be mad cus they’re tryna prove they’re right but truth is different to everyone n it’s so beautiful to see people talk about and discuss it with kindness , respect and geniality:’)

[@1LineAtATime]

I agree!

[@moosemw]

You did a reasonably fair job laying out the Catholic point of view. Although, it wasn't Martin Luther that decided the deuterocanonical books were not canonical. It originally was sects of Jews that came to that conclusion around 80 AD. They believed that since the original texts of the deuterocanonical book were in Greek (and not in Hebrew) that they did not belong in the Canon. However, parts of Sirach and Tobit were found, in Hebrew, in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, there are references to the deuterocanonical books in the New Testament. This should come as no surprise. The Septuagint, which contained the deuterocanonical books, was the Scripture used by the Apostles and by Jesus. You can see themes from Wisdom of Solomon in Matthews and Maccabees in Hebrews. We hear echoes of Sirach 27:6 in Christ's words (Mt 7:16,20). Hanukkah is celebrated by the Apostles and we find that in 2 Maccabees. Further, we cannot use a lack of quotations in the NT as evidence that the books are not canonical. That reasoning would preclude 8 OT books from the Canon. Lastly, there were councils in third and fourth centuries AD at Carthage and Hippo that confirmed the deuterocanonical books were canonical.

[@maelwys5]

i had heard there were also quotes from enoch and 2nd esdras in NT, some by jesus

[@ptk8451]

Where do yu find the Apostles celebrating hanukkah

[@BrazilianPride22041]

@@ptk8451 John 10:22

[@shaG6568]

@Michael Moose, thank you for this comment because I thought he kinda forgot to mention these very important points!

[@HickoryDickory86]

He failed to mention them not out of forgetfulness but ignorance. He flat-out says at 6:04 that there are "no references to the Apocrypha" in the New Testament. That's just patently false, and anyone who would make such a claim just clearly has never read the Deuteroncanonical books. Either that or he's being deceitful; I choose to be charitable and assume it's ignorance.

[@jonloveland7781]

Just started watching your channel and I’m impressed. I appreciate your open attitude and fair stance when discussing topics that have divided. Full disclosure, I’m Catholic, so I do have a couple questions on how you arrived at your conclusion. In your video “Who picked what books went into the bible?” you said that the council of Carthage affirmed the already existing canon. This canon included the books of the apocrypha (yes, I paused for the bonus content). So if the church agreed on the apocrypha as being canon how do you get from that to this video that says they aren’t canon? Yeah, Jerome may have disagreed that they were canon but didn't he assent to the Church’s consensus and authority and accept them in the end? You also say the apocrypha wasn’t referenced in the New Testament but there are places online that do list references. Lastly, just to comment on you saying that the Apocrypha wasn’t publicly confirmed at a council of the entire church again goes against what you said in the previous video regarding the council of Carthage. In light of that and other council that confirmed it as canon why would a council need to affirm it again if everyone is using it as canon already? It’s not until people, like Luther, who didn’t have the authority to arbitrarily remove canonical books but does that a council must be convened by the Church to affirm for the last time what is canon. Regardless, very interesting video!

[@charlieboy1701]

Hey....I’m Catholic and LOVE your videos. Thanks to God for leading me to you. I have several versions of the Bible, not all Catholic. I’ve always considered these books to be sort of a “directors cut”. Interesting......good writing.....but didn’t quite move the story along like the other books. You will not go to hell by reading them I promise. Your video was excellent. Thank you for your thoughtful presentation of a subject that really does get some Christians worked up. God bless you and your work....I’m a fan!

[@nowitznes41]

Catholic convert from Protestantism here. Thanks for trying to be objective and fair as most people are not. A few things to understand about your comments, though. You left out the Eastern Churches who also consider those books as scripture. So all of Christendom accepted them for 1500 years prior to Luther. Yes, Jerome and others bickered about them because they were in Greek and it did not go over well in dialogues with Jews...but they were always scripture, read at Mass, etc. And it's not true that they dont point to Jesus. I can tell you have never read them. Read Wisdom chapter 2 and tell me who the author is prophesying? Clearly it's Jesus. If you continue studying the history you will ultimately end up Catholic or Orthodox. Just a friendly warning lol

[@Renvere]

nowitznes41 Your friendly warning is true. 2 years ago, I did deep delving in the history of the church as a nice little nondemoninational charismatic. Fast forward to now, and I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox church lol

[@rosewhisner3250]

I can also affirm your friendly warning. Starting RCIA next month :)

[@christianwilson9677]

Yep, that’s what happened to me...read the Fathers, Study history...false premises collapse...realize that my whole point of reference has changed...I am alien in my Protestant circles (though there is much of my understanding and heritage that finds more expression and completeness)... now I am Eastern Orthodox. ;)

[@BikeRideTherapy]

Yep, I was Reformed Baptist.keep digging, you will be Catholic soon

[@markawetachega9769]

@@Christian-ut2sp Catholic don't pray to MARY. Catholics ask for Mary's intercession just as they do ask for the intercession of any other saint in the family of God. The rosary prayer speaks for itself. Nowhere in the Hail Mary prayer that there is evidence Catholics are praying to Mary but rather evident we are asking for her intercession. The next question will be, why do you ask for the intercession of Mary when Jesus is the only Mediator to God? Now, I ask the question, why do you ask for the prayer/intercession of your pastor and fellow Christian when Jesus is the only Mediator? If you can do that, what makes it wrong to ask the same family member -Mary to pray for us? (Ephesians 3:14)

[@taraking6472]

My King James Bible has a note in the back with the section describing the books of the Bible stating that the apocryphal books were included in the KJV until the 19th century. This led me to read them seriously. My husband and I both have read the books now and think it would be beneficial reading for any Christian although not mandatory to understanding Christianity.

[@richardbond258]

I wanted to share that I love the book of Sirach. It is beautiful book written inspired by God. When I was recovering from 2 years of depression and an emotional breakdown, I read the book of Sirach multiple times. It help me find healing in God and Jesus. Thank you for making these videos.

[@giroirtj20001]

After watching the video and reading through a few comments I have just one point. If the Catholic church got it wrong in reference to the Apocrypha, Then what makes you think they got the rest of the Bible right?

[@TomLandry1]

Tim Giroir - BiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnGoooooooooo! ;-)

[@stevenharder308]

As far as I can make out, Jews attempting to undermine the spread of Christianity, unlike the Church itself, had a handle on which parts of the Old Testament contain the really good Jesus-y stuff, and decided to preserve only those parts. Go figure.

[@ediemarsh5265]

@@stevenharder308 Yes I agree, Jews didnt like all the Jesus stuff and the parts about the coming rapture of the chuch that are not in the bible.

[@clydeallen738]

That’s witty

[@nosuchthing8]

Yup. Cheery picking.

[@EdwardGraveline]

Gutenberg printed the first book ever in 1455. Way before the Protestant Reformation. What book did he print? a 73 book Latin Bible. Martin Luther and followers took out the 7 books and parts of Daniel and Esther.

[@LlywellynOBrien]

Couple things: The disagreement about whether a bunch of books called the Apocrypha should be included between the Testaments is essentially one between different groups of Protestants. For Catholics, and the Orthodox (with their longer Canon) these books, or parts of books, are very much part of the Old Testament. Comments from here on will focus on the Catholic Deuterocanon as this is the one you addressed. Your characterisation of both the content of these books also seems far too focused on 1st and 2nd Maccabees, with only a passing reference to the other books which are largely considered Wisdom Liturature or sometimes Biblical Novellas. Coming to the heart of the matter, I think you understated the arguements for inclusion, and overstated those against. I will only focus on a few points. With regards to the point concerning the lack of quotes from these books in the New Testament, you apply a standard which would see a dramatic shortening of the part of the Old Testament we all agree on, as there are several books not referred to in any way in the New Testament which are universally accepted as Canonical. This list shortens when one includes allusions, but the New Testament also includes a handful of allusions to the Deuterocanon. Equally this whole manner of determining cannonicity brings other problems, as both the Old Testament and New Testament quote from or allude to loads of non-Biblical books. Your mention of Jerome is also a little unbalanced, as brining him up without mentioning that he very much held a minority view may mislead your viewers. Your description of why he did include the Deuterocanon in the end is also wonky. Jerome didn't do so out of his view that they were edifying, but essentially out of acknowledgment of the Authority of the Church to determine the Canon and deference to this. It should also be noted that highlighting the debated status of the Deuterocanon in the Early Church is misleading if done in isolation, as other books, particularly in the New Testament, were far, far more heavily debated. It is also important to note that the idea of a straight up and down in or out Canon, within which everything is fully inspired and beyond which nothing is was a very gradual development in the Early Church, particularly in the East this understanding was not popular until defined at councils and insisted upon by Rome. These last two points bring me to my last, which regards the lack of a universal definition of the Canonicity of the Deuterocanon at an Ecumenical Council. This ties to the common misconception about the how's and whys of such Councils and definitions, which in reality only dealt with matters of great controversy. In general, Councils were only called, and doctrines defined, where debate on some part of Church teaching was widespread and controversial. The lack of an Ecumenical and binding definition on these books actually highlights how firm, and by the 5th Century how universal, acceptance of them actually was. These books never warranted the same kind of binding declarations that were made on other matters because the view that they were not Canonical was simply never held by anything more than a small minority.

[@adrianvarela8890]

Thank you for posting. GBY

[@DenNavnlos]

First off, solid video. I’m learning a huge amount of biblical history from you. Second, whaaaat prompted the GoT font with ‘80s workout themes? I love it.

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

It just needed to happen. The video would have been way off without those two obviously complimentary elements.

[@DenNavnlos]

The Ten Minute Bible Hour It’s actually how I get into a scriptural mindstate. Thank you for providing the right atmosphere.

[@meisjohn]

Love the interlude music Matt. It's inspired.

[@ericgatera7149]

This video is much appreciated. Coming from a Catholic perspective, I will more or less agree with your summation of why Catholics hold on to the Deteurocanonicals even though it is more nuanced than that. But hey, at least you tried to be fair, thanks. I see you have a great library, did you by any chance read Gary Michuta on this very topic? Forexample, "Why Catholic Bible is bigger?" Or "The Case for the Deteurocanonics"? If yes, I'd appreciate to hear your honest review of those book length treatments on this subject. Peace be with you!

[@barelyprotestant5365]

Thanks for the video! I want to point out that Protestantism, historically, never outright rejected the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon (the latter is a better name for it). As Anglicans, we hold to it being a secondary Canon that is not on par with the rest of Scripture, but is still important to read and study. Lutherans have a similar, though not as strong, position. Recall that the King James Bible did translate the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. Most Bibles printed had the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon in them until the 1800's. It's largely Evangelicals who utterly reject it.

[@stephencagle8233]

Luther's German bible also included the Apocrypha, it's just that he was the first to place them in their own section labeled "Apocrypha." Luther used Jerome's prologue to the Vulgate as a justification for this.

[@meaganroffel5963]

I agree that’s a far better name for it as apocrypha assumes it is heretical (another definition of Apocrypha besides simply being not canon is not genuine). There are apocrypha books (ones added to the 27 New Testament one) but 7 deuterocanical books are not part of that.

[@kitiowa]

With all due respect that was a fairly weak argument (or set of arguments). The notion that somehow it is a separate work isn't accurate. It is a sort of third section/segment because for the first couple of hundred years it was in the Protestant Bible as a separate section. Martin Luther removed it from his German Bible but King James had the book in his version. Let's explore further the historic use. There are four communions which trace their history back to the twelve Apostles (thus Jesus personally). Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Ancient Church of the East. All of these communions take their canon from the Septuagint which includes the books rejected by Protestants. They have been Christian scripture since even before there was a "New Testament". A part of the reasoning Protestants used to reject the Septuagint was because Judaism doesn't canonize it. Ironically Judaism doesn't canonize it because it isn't Jewish enough. If one believes in the Council of Jamnia hypothesis (which doesn't appear to hold water anyway) the same council which rejected the Septuagint was when Judaism defined Christianity as heretical. The idea that Jesus doesn't reference those specific parts of scripture is a rabbit hole that puts in question far more of the Old Testament. Jesus isn't reported to quote a great deal of scripture in the first place. Of perhaps greatest interest to me is-where did Protestants get the authority to remove these books from the canon of scripture? All of Christendom recognized this as part of the canon of the bible for the first millennium and a half of it's history. I require convincing that Protestants can justify removing it.

[@a.k.4486]

kitiowa I am with you on that!

[@Raddlesby]

I came across this video today. After reading some of the comments, I will second Aaron Barr's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th points (not that is other points are not valid). YES, the New Testament quotes deuterocanon books! In abundance. The presentation that it does not is simply incorrect.

[@karatriolo3238]

Raddlesby yes! Over 100 times!

[@FoggyBadger]

The Apocrypha is the Rogue One of the Bible. It's an interesting side story that explains an important part of history, but isn't part of the Skywalker saga, or in this case, the story of Jesus.

[@markcrawford4239]

Skywalker saga lol love the analogy lol

[@AJ_Jingco]

That's pretty true.

[@ericb8217]

You get a thumbs up because you sound like a pastor explaining it to his congregation.

[@NKript]

Jingkiftic Films, I am guessing you have not read the deuterocanonical books. I'm in the process of reading them, and so far, they are worthwhile and there isn't anything wrong about them.

[@thepsalms2806]

That's my take on it, awesome analogy

[@mr.caretaker6086]

Matt: "I think this is one of those points where we can respectfully disagree and get a long just fine." Ominous glow of fire in the distance: "BURN HIM!!!!!!!!!!"

[@theneighborguy]

Protestants also wanted James and Revelation included in the *Apocrypha. They couldn't effectively protest those as they were already over their head in heresies to the point they were losing the followers they gained thru protest. "Protestant: is literally to protest, in this case protesting the Church of the Apostles instituted by Christ himself.

[@Bjt5081]

Was there any other Christian church around in the early centuries other than the Catholic Church? Who would know whats acceptable scripture better than the early Christians? Who were they? Do modern day theologians know better than those taught by the original apostles of Jesus?

[@bartlarsson6432]

Orthodox Christianity has always had these books, as well as a few more the Roman Catholics don’t have (3 & 4 Maccabees, Epistle of Jeremiah), and the Prayer of Manasseh that goes with 2 Esdras (Ezra), Additions to Esther, as well as an alternate numbering of the Psalms. I assume that’s because Orthodoxy adheres to the Septuagint Greek and not the Vulgate. In any case, this is such an informative video and many thanks for posting it!

[@manuelfaelnar4794]

Bart Larsson v You are right. The fact is Orthodox and Catholics agree on the deuterocanonical texts which most Protestants call Apocrypha.

[@ea-tr1jh]

"Orthodox Christianity has always had these books." Then you haven't read the church fathers.

[@alexdiaz155]

@@ea-tr1jh You haven’t read the Councils which all the Fathers obeyed. The Fathers don’t decide anything on themselves, the Church dictates truth.

[@berrywellpictures]

I’m quoting from Jason Evert here: Well, if the New Testament never quotes from these seven books, doesn’t that indicate that they were not considered to be inspired? Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books-such as the Song of Songs-that are also not quoted in the New Testament. If we’re not willing to do that, we have to agree that the absence of a quote in the New Testament does not suggest that a book is not inspired. Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life.” Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.

[@haroldbailey9011]

berrywellpictures you’re examination of Hebrews 11:35 is grossly incorrect. “Women received back their dead by resurrection.” for example...Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24), and Elisha (2 Kings 4:18-37). And “rise again to a better life” is literally, “obtain a better resurrection,” a final one, to eternal life.

[@CatholicJohn]

@The Scooter both of you have valid points actually, but @berrywellpictures is correct. Verse 35 is referring to two different groups of people. The first half of verse 35 does indeed refer to Elijah and Elisha. However, “some were tortured and would not accept deliverance...” is referring to the Maccabean martyrs.

[@RGTomoenage11]

The Jews removed the apocrypha because it proved Jesus is the Messiah. Protestants actually removed them in the 1800s. I have the first King James Bible and it has the apocrypha. Luther also kept it in his Bible, didn’t remove it. He just put them at the end of his Bible. By the way, there are references to the apocrypha. Tobias12,12 Revelation 8 3-4 1 Sam 16,23 Tob 5,8 Tob 12,9 Dan 4,24 1 Cor 15, 29) y (2 Mac 12, 44): I could give you more references from every deuterocanonical book if you wish.

[@ChristiDea]

OK, I understand that almost half of Christendom omits the Deuterocanonical Books. Let's just jump over that for a second and zoom into the books we all agree on. I cannot for the life of me figure out why Luther, Tyndall and Coverdale would choose to omit over 66 verses of chapter three of Daniel. I've been seeking the answer to this puzzle all day. Why would they object to the prayer of Azariah aka Abednago. To me, reading it points directly to the pre-incarnate Christ as seen in 3:49-50 "But the angel of the Lord went down into the furnace with Azariah and his companions, drove the fiery flames out of the furnace and made the inside of the furnace s though a dew-laden breeze were blowing". Now I do see reference to angels, powers, Spirits and Souls of the just being instructed to praise the Lord and I know some of the Reformers took issue with the concept of the communion of saints (the idea that the saints in heaven are perfectly aware of what is happening on earth). Perhaps this is why they wanted to cut that section, but really, for me I can't see anything that would bar it from being "God Breathed" especially when it's right in the middle of the story - obviously it was cut out. I can see why Jews who wanted to stem the tide of conversion to Christianity would want to remove those sections, but I honestly can't see why a Christian would.

[@CarolineJoyAmico]

Wow, I love this comment. Thank you. I actually learned quite a bit from this, that I hadn’t considered.

[@alexdiaz155]

The best part of this is that the Angel of the Lord is Pre-Incarnate Jesus. It has nothing to do with the Communion of the Saints, which can be proven in certain parts of Jeremiah and Revelation, but this just attests to Christ’s faithfulness and saving grace. It is a wonder it was removed.

[@danielfawcett3991]

Hi Matt, it's your mom, (specifically the Canadian one going to a Lutheran seminary) and I wanted to say great video as always. That being said, I feel like throwing some wrenches into your account. First, Luther never actually removed these books from the Bible, nor did the translators of the KJV, despite their reservations. They simply put them into a separate section. Second, Luther's immediate followers (the Lutherans, of course) never actually came down officially on the issue of canon. If you peruse the Book of Concord, you'll notice that at no time does it ever define the actual contents of the Bible. English bible publishers eventually dropped it in order to make bibles cheaper, and English speaking Lutherans have been using their bibles. Recently, Concordia Publishing House (the official publishing house of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) has even published a study apocrypha, with devotional material and study notes. Meanwhile, Anglicans continue to use the apocrypha in their lectionaries. Yours in Christ, Daniel P.S. Will you do a video on books that actually almost made it into the Bible, like the Shepherd of Hermas?

[@MattWhitmanTMBH]

To be clear, I don't think Luther removed anything from the Bible, nor do I think it would matter if he did. Luther is important, but in Protestant theology, he's still just some guy. In the segment where I was talking about that I was quoting Catholic friends and articles on the subject.

[@JosueSantiagoG]

As a former LCMSer and one who had Confessional leanings, I had no idea that the Book of Concord or the early Lutherans never officially decided anything regarding the Deuteros. Thanks!

[@michaelt5030]

10:18 "I can think of a four letter word to describe what kind of religion that is..." *Me, counting with my fingers because of course* "But...Islam has five letters..."