Introduction

People familiar with their Bibles may be surprised to know that the contents of an authorized Roman Catholic Bible are different than what is commonly accepted among other churches. The Old Testament section of a Roman Catholic Bible has about 15 additional books that are not found in a "Protestant" Bible. The actual number may vary according to translation as some books are combined, or verses are added to existing books (in the table of contents you may see only 7 extras listed). Are we missing books from our Bibles? Have the Protestant churches removed books from the Bible that would uphold Roman Catholic teaching?

The Deuterocannonical Writings

The collection of writings that Protestants call the Apocrypha (hidden writings), Roman Catholics call the deuterocannonical (later or second canon) books. These were "infallibly" accepted into the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 at the Council of Trent (which also pronounces anathema (excommunication from the church) on any who reject them. These books include the following titles:

• The Wisdom of Solomon  OR  The Book of Wisdom
• Ecclisiasticus  OR  Sirach
• Tobit
• Judith
• 2-4 Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah are sometimes called 1-2 Esdras)
• 1-2 Maccabees
• Baruch
• The Letter of Jeremiah  OR  Baruch ch. 6
• Esther 10:4-16:24 (additional material added)
• Prayer of Azariah  OR  Daniel 3:24-90 (additional material added)
• Susanna   OR  Daniel ch. 13 (additional material added)
• Bel and the Dragon  OR  Daniel ch. 14 (additional material added)

Other books were not counted as part of the Roman Catholic canon, but are present in some Eastern Orthodox Bibles:

• 1 Esdras
• The Prayer of Manasseh
• 3-4 Maccabees
• Psalm 151

Why are they included?

These books were written between 300 B.C. and 100 A.D., the Intertestamental Period between the inspired writings of God's Prophets in the Old Testament and those of the apostles and their contemporaries in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic arguments for including these writings are as follows:

• The New Testament refers to events recorded in these books (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12).
• Some of the early church fathers quoted from these writings, and some even accepted them as inspired.
• Early Greek manuscripts have been found that contain the Apocrypha, along with the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures).
• Other, earlier, church councils accepted the Apocrypha.
• Even some Protestant Bibles (from the 19th century) contain the extra books.
• Some of the apocryphal books were found with the Old Testament writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
• They were infallibly pronounced as Scripture at the council of Trent.

Why they were not included

Roman Catholicism's claim of infallibility notwithstanding, the arguments for inclusion of these books are far less than compelling. Negatively, there are several problems with their arguments. Positively, there are good reasons not to include them in the first place. The reasoning follows:

• The New Testament refers to events contained in these books.  There is not a single quotation from the Apocrypha in the New Testament. The New Testament refers to a multitude of events outside Scripture, none of which make those events (Josh 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18; Numbers 21:14), nor their recording,  inspired by God (in fact, introductory phrases like "it is written" or "thus says the Lord" are conspicuously absent). ANY writing may contain factual events (in fact, 2 Maccabees is an excellent source for Jewish history in the time of Antiochus Epiphanies), but this also is not indicative of God's inspiration or approval. There are many sources listed in the Bible that we no longer have, yet none of these are included in the canon, and for good reason (see below).
  
  
• Some of the early church fathers quoted from these writings, and some even accepted them as inspired. This argument cuts both ways, as some did not. More notable is the list of those who did not quote from the apocryphal writings - Jesus, and every apostle.
  
  
• Early Greek manuscripts have been found that contain the Apocrypha, along with the Septuagint. While this argument may at first sound compelling, the larger picture provides a clearer picture... First, none of these books were included in the Hebrew Scriptures. Second, no Greek manuscript has a matching list of apocryphal books to that of the Roman Catholic Church list. Third, not a single manuscript contains all of the apocryphal books. Fourth, only four books are found in all of them. Fifth, if they existed at the time of Christ, why did He not refer to them as inspired or quote from them? This might seem to be an even better argument for not including them.
  
  
• Other, earlier, church councils accepted the Apocrypha. Only the councils not universally recognized by the Church (which includes the three major branches) accepted the apocrypha. Also, the New Testament Church has no say in what is contained in the Old Testament Scriptures, for the issue was already decided by then.
  
  
• Even some Protestant Bibles (from the 19th century) contain the extra books. These were not a major issue during the Reformation. Even before that event, however, the apocrypha was considered a separate addition to the inspired canon and was not given equal status with the actual Bible by either side.
  
  
• Some of the apocryphal books were found with the Old Testament writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If this criterion were used for other writings found in Qumran, we would have a large Bible indeed! In actuality, the Dead Sea Scrolls are an entire library of books. More telling is the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures were set apart in special parchments that excluded the apocrypha, and although commentaries existed for the Old Testament, none were found for any book of the apocrypha.
  
  
• They were infallibly pronounced as Scripture at the council of Trent. This is, of course, the heart of the issue. The long and the short of it is this: The Roman Catholic Church did not decide the canon (see below), nor are their pronouncements infallible (see article on infallibility). Further, it was a non-unanimous decision at Trent to add these admittedly non-inspired writings to the Holy Word of God.

The true test for inclusion in the Biblical canon is not mere usage or support by the early church. More important is the authority the book possesses. In Scripture we find prophets of God whose message is ratified by miracles or prophecy that comes true, whose message is immediately accepted by the people (Deut 31:26; Josh. 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Daniel 9:2; Col. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). What we find in the apocrypha is just the opposite, with one book specifically stating that it is not inspired (1 Maccabees 9:27)!

• No apocryphal book was written by a prophet.
• There is no ratification of the authors of any apocryphal book.
• There is no fulfilled prophecy in any apocryphal book.
• No apocryphal book is cited as authoritative by later Biblical writers.
• Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha... and neither did His disciples.
• The historian Philo do not quote from the apocrypha, and Josephus specifically excluded the apocryphal books from the Old Testament.
• Jerome, the Roman Catholic Biblical authority who translated the Scriptures rejected the apocrypha outright, and initially even refused to translate it at all!

Doctrine

The doctrinal value of these books seems questionable. The only major aberration theologically speaking is in its affirmation of prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees. In fact, if the Roman Catholic Church had included all the apocryphal books available, they would have contradicted this teaching (2nd or 4th Esdras is against this practice).

Conclusion

The Roman Catholic Church's insistence upon supreme authority in matters of belief was once again manifested in its