Why did Protestants excise entire books from the O.T.?

[Catharsis]

Question: Why did Protestants excise entire books from the Old Testament?

Any volume which claims to be "the Bible" and yet does not contain these books is, at best, an expurgated or abbreviated Bible and at worst an outright misrepresentation.

It would be tedious and unnecessary to list all the books in question; the quickest way to determine whether your volume is complete is to check the table of contents for the two best-known books: the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach.

All these books formed part of the original text of the King James Version of the Bible, and are simply deleted from the text in Protestant printings.

[Heterodoxus]

the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach.

The word "Wisdom" indicates these books have have a Septuagint (LXX) heritage, meaning they advocate pro-Judaism--not necessarily Protestant--beliefs.

these books formed part of the original text of the King James Version of the Bible, and are simply deleted from the text in Protestant printings.

The KJV is the Protestant Bible issued so the Church of England (Protestant) and the largely illiterate English people (Protestant) in King James' time would not need to rely upon Jerome's Latin, pro-Catholic Vulgate Bible for their belief and instruction.

More information is available here and in any unbiased Bible History text.

[puddleglum]

It would be tedious and unnecessary to list all the books in question; the quickest way to determine whether your volume is complete is to check the table of contents for the two best-known books: the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach.

All these books formed part of the original text of the King James Version of the Bible, and are simply deleted from the text in Protestant printings.

After the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek some books were added that weren't part of the original Hebrew. These books are among them. Since Jesus lived in Israel the Bible he used was the Hebrew one, which didn't include these books. He often criticized his opponents for failing to believe the Scriptures but he never indicated that they had any wrong belief as to what was included in the scriptures so he evidently didn't consider these additions to be part of the word of God. Even the Catholic Church didn't officially declare these books inspired until the Council of Trent, which took place after the Protestant reformation had begun. Protestants didn't remove these books from the Bible, Catholics added them to it.

[Goat]

It would be tedious and unnecessary to list all the books in question; the quickest way to determine whether your volume is complete is to check the table of contents for the two best-known books: the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach.

All these books formed part of the original text of the King James Version of the Bible, and are simply deleted from the text in Protestant printings.

After the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek some books were added that weren't part of the original Hebrew. These books are among them. Since Jesus lived in Israel the Bible he used was the Hebrew one, which didn't include these books. He often criticized his opponents for failing to believe the Scriptures but he never indicated that they had any wrong belief as to what was included in the scriptures so he evidently didn't consider these additions to be part of the word of God. Even the Catholic Church didn't officially declare these books inspired until the Council of Trent, which took place after the Protestant reformation had begun. Protestants didn't remove these books from the Bible, Catholics added them to it.

Excuse me, but yes, they were part of the original Hebrew, just as much as many of the others. They were not put into the 'cannon' in the last 1st century to be sure, but they did exist as writings in Hebrew. The Wisdom of Sirach was written before the Book of Daniel for example.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Wisdom of Sirach was written before the Book of Daniel for example.

May I ask why you believe this to be the case?

[Goat]

The Wisdom of Sirach was written before the Book of Daniel for example.

May I ask why you believe this to be the case?

Because we know when the Wisdom of Sirach was written, and we know when Daniel was written.

Events that were alluded to in the Book of Daniel place the writing of the book
of Daniel to be about 164 bce.

The Wisdom of Sirach was the first third of the second century bce, , after 196 bce. because it has a eulogy to Simon the high priest..

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirach


Considering the average length of two generations, Ben Sira's date must fall in the first third of the Second Century BCE. Furthermore, Ben Sira contains a eulogy of "Simon the High Priest, the son of Onias, who in his life repaired the House" (50:1). Most scholars agree that it seems to have formed the original ending of the text, and that the second High Priest Simon (died 196 BC) was intended. Struggles between Simon's successors occupied the years 175–172 BC and are not alluded to in the book, nor is the 168 BC persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.[7]


and about the book of Daniel .. from http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/daniel.html


W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Wisdom of Sirach was written before the Book of Daniel for example.

May I ask why you believe this to be the case?

Because we know when the Wisdom of Sirach was written, and we know when Daniel was written.

Events that were alluded to in the Book of Daniel place the writing of the book
of Daniel to be about 164 bce.

The Wisdom of Sirach was the first third of the second century bce, , after 196 bce. because it has a eulogy to Simon the high priest..

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirach

Considering the average length of two generations, Ben Sira's date must fall in the first third of the Second Century BCE. Furthermore, Ben Sira contains a eulogy of "Simon the High Priest, the son of Onias, who in his life repaired the House" (50:1). Most scholars agree that it seems to have formed the original ending of the text, and that the second High Priest Simon (died 196 BC) was intended. Struggles between Simon's successors occupied the years 175–172 BC and are not alluded to in the book, nor is the 168 BC persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.[7]

and about the book of Daniel .. from http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/daniel.html

W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)

Yes, I'm familiar with both Kirby and Wikipedia. Thanks.

[Joshua]

Im not to sure about this, but after the reformation.

Did Luther also want to remove Acts, and the letters from the apostles to the certain diocese?