Brought up in the Anglican Church in England. Actually up until the about the 1830’s The King James Bible had those 7 extra books in the Old Testament. My dear grandmother had this very old bible that had these extra books in her old bible. She was born in 1877. Wish I had that bible I was living in Northeastern Pa. when she died. Did not have the money to fly back to England when she died. I converted to the Catholic Church living in the U.S.

Not a Catholic but have never been satisfied with explanations offered on why we don’t honor these books. This was very helpful and enlightening. Thank you.

My friend is shocked and is now “meeting with her pastor to ask this question” I am glad I planted the seed

Studying history makes everything so clear. Memorizing scriptural snippets to attack Catholics leaves one empty inside.

The question isnt about extra books, but why Protestants erased 7 books from the Bible.

You guys are rocking it now! Looking so forward to your next several shows!

Thanks Dr. Marshall. I really do appreciate these videos. I'm eager to know more about my faith so that I'm able to defend my positions when occasions arise. I admire your love for mother church. Godspeed!

I remembered "7 books, & parts of 2 others". Thanks for the refresher. :)

Where are the “notes” that show the 70 places the apostles use the deuterocanonical books? That would be very handy to have saved for Protestants who challenge me.

Thank you for this very enlightening video. This is a very good material for apologetics. 😊

This answered so much of my questions. Thank you.

Thank you for this most informative video Dr. Marshall. God bless you

A lot of End Times students like to study these books for historical knowledge. If we read all these books then we will have great wisdom and knowledge in Jesus name

God bless you, great explanation and representation. I love the book of Daniel and the story of Susan. We can learn much from these accounts and storys of biblical times.

Thank you so much for this useful video! I loved that you put the different facts on the screen! I wrote em’ all down and put ‘em’ in my Bible!

Wonderfully communicated! Thank you for your hard work

thanks, Dr Marshall - your exposition is very enlightening - the Deuterocanonicals are marvellous books- I loved the Bible by reading first Tobias

Maybe others have already mentioned this, but it's not exactly accurate to say that Luther removed 7 books from the Bible. He included the Deuterocanonical books in his German translation. So did the early Calvinists and even the Anabaptists. The issue is how we regard these books. Informed Protestants find these books helpful and, like Luther, encourage their continued reading. In some Protestant churches they are still read along with the Old Testament lessons (mostly Anglican and Lutheran). Protestant churches will also use canticles sourced from these books. To this day you will still find them included in the modern version of Luther's Bible and Bible translations in other predominantly Lutheran countries. Granted, many American Protestants are unfamiliar with the Deuterocanonical books, but this is a more recent phenomena due largely to publishers omitting these books from modern American translations. The issue, then, is whether or not these books should be utilized as a source for establishing doctrine. That's where the Protestant/Catholic divide on these 7 books is more evident. Protestants look at the "Deutero-" nature of the books and say they should not be used to establish doctrine. Catholics look more to the "-canonical" side of the equation and say yes they should. Thanks for a well done video, Dr. Marshall.

Good refresher. Thanks for posting.

Thank you so much Dr. Marshall...

Excellent presentation dr. Thank you. Pax

I recently started reading the apocrypha and was like 😯 this is great, why would this ever get removed. I walked in and showed a passage to my in laws and wife thinking they’d be like “wow yeah that’s awesome!” But instead I’m sitting here now after an epically tense uncomfortable and weird interaction like “wow that was a bad idea”.

Thank you Taylor…short, sweet and to the point

Thank you for sharing this information.

The right question is : why protestant kick out 7 books from the Bible.

Amen, Brother!

Great video Dr. Marshall!

Excellent explanation! Many thanks! I love these books especially Sirach but recently Tobit. I love the Catholic Church and that we can trace the history of the things in the way you described.

Excellent explanation!! That was the beginning of the “cancel culture”. Luther, simply drops 7 books!!!

Hi, Dr. Marshall! I don't see the numerous references you'd mentioned that you would put into the comments section (70+ Bible references to the deuterocanonical books). Could you update the description to provide them, by chance? Many thanks, either way!!

Just got a question on this on FB THANK YOU well done lad!

Thank you, i needed to learn this history of the Bible❤️❤️❤️

Martin Luther removed them

Every major event in the life of the Messiah was foretold by prophecies. How ever only the book of Wisdom (2:12-21) has the Messianic Prophecy that explains what lead to the crucifixion of the Messiah including what would happen at the crucifixion event (what the Pharisees & the priests said about him on the cross). Is it God inspired then?

Have a Great and Blessed 4th of July guys! Enjoy all We The People... Still have.

Very good video!

Yep....agree wholeheartedly with several below. The real question you need to address is why the Protestants put the kibosh on the 7+. We don't have 7 extra......they have 7 missing.

The Bible Is A Catholic Book - Did you ever wonder how the Bible came into being? A little known, but easily documented fact is that the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church. For many years after Christ ascended into Heaven, there was debate about which scriptural writings were inspired by God. The canon of Scripture (the books of the Bible) was first formally decided at the Synod of Rome in 382. This decision was upheld at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). At these Catholic Church councils, the same 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books that appear in today’s Catholic Bibles were declared to be inspired by God. As a side note, approximately 1200 years after this decision was made, Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers removed 7 books from the Old Testament. As a result, most Protestant Bibles are still missing these 7 books.

Thank you so very much! 2024 and I am not barely learning about this! I am a protestant considering becoming a catholic.

Thank you Dr God bless you

As an Orthodox Christian, we have even two or three more books than the Roman Catholic Bible has

I’d like to bring up questions I’ve had asked of me as a Catholic. 1. The book of Jude and many Church Father site books like Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, which are not canonical. Why aren’t they canonical? 2. The Septuagint also contained other books not found in the canon (like the prayer of Manasseh and psalm 151). Why aren’t they canonical? 3. Many Church Fathers give canon lists that do not match the Catholic canon (like Jerome rejecting Maccabees and Athansius rejecting Sirach as well as Esther). Why not their lists? To be clear, I am a catholic and have found responses to contemplate when these questions come. But maybe you can do a follow up video to clarify info like this!

God Bless! Thank you for this comprehensive explination. It’s sad because these misunderstandings between Catholics and Protestant are the same arguments used by orher religions and atheism to further divide Christianity.

The Protestants removed the 7 books because it doesn't agree with their teachings. In the book of Maccabees praying for souls does not go with the teachings of the Protestants. For me the book of Maccabees actually made the way for Jesus' coming.

Thank you. I'd like to know why some Orthodox include other books: prayer of manesseh, Enoch, 3 Maccabees and I think 3 Esdras come to mind.

Greetings. At 05:41 you stated that _"the New Testament refers to the deuterocanonical books."_ And that _"in the notes of this video [you] will include about 70 examples (70 cross references between the deuteros and the New Testament)"_ which I could not find. Can you please kindly point me in the direction of that supporting info? Thank you, and Blessings!

My main takeaway? When the apostles quoted the Old Testament, 2/3 of the time it's a direct quote from the Greek Septuagint, which (shocking!) has the 7 deuterocanonical books that Martin Luther pulled out. Case closed for any reasonable reader, I think. Are there any credible counterarguments?

I haven’t watched this video yet, but seeing the title brought one question immediately to mind. Since our bible was the first compilation of the growing Catholic Church, shouldn’t the question be why did others feel the need to remove the 7 books. They don’t strike me as being extra. Probably just semantics but I feel that we should remember that we are the bedrock of the Christian Faith. So we should be the baseline by which all others are measured. And apparently I’m not the only one who feels this way. Lol

I have an old King James Bible with Apocrypha from the 1950s and it has 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, which are not in my Catholic Bible.

thank you

Melito undermines your position ("Wisdom" is probably a reference to Proverbs). He excludes the Apocrypha and he would undermine the position that the Septuagint gives you a particular canon.

Great video overall, but there is 1 mistake. Dr. Taylor says that the first time the cannon was established was 382 ad, but Codex Vaticanus (the first full Bible) was written in 325 ad and holds the modern cannon. Since 325 ad, the Bible has included the deuterocanonical texts while rejecting gnostic texts like the “Gospel of Thomas.” That established the cannon until Martin Luther rejected these books in 1522 ad; he also rejected books like the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Epistles of James and Jude, but other reformers convinced him to keep those books in the Luther Bible.

“Now, the complete canon of Scripture, under which we render this judgment that is to be practiced, consists of the following books: Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, one book of Joshua, son of Nun, one of the judges, a small book called Ruth, which seems quite to belong to the beginning of the Kings; then, four books by Kings, and two by Chronicles - the latter do not follow each other, but run in parallel, so to speak, and take place in the same land. The books mentioned are now stories, which contain a connected narrative of the times, and follow the order of events. There are other books that do not seem to follow any regular order, and are not connected either with the order of the previous books, nor with each other, such as Job, Tobias, Esther, Judith, the two books of the Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which seem to continue the story that ends with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the prophets, in which there is a book of the Psalms of David, and three books of Solomon, namely, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiastical, they are attributed to Solomon in a certain similarity of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus, son of Sirac. They are placed among the prophetic books, since they obtained recognition as being authority. The rest are the books that are strictly called the Prophets: twelve books separate from the prophets that are connected with each other, and having never been removed, are counted as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and then there are the four greatest prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The Old Man's authority is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. The New Testament, again, is present in the following: Four books of the Gospels, a second Matthew, a second Mark, a second Luke, a second John, fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul - one for the Romans, two for the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews; two from Peter, three from John, one from Judas, and one from James; a book of the Acts of the Apostles, and one of the Apocalypse of John. ” SAINT AUGUSTINE, 397 AC

How can I find the show notes

protestant here, thank you so much for explaining !I remember getting so mad at school when I asked why Catholics had extra books and my teacher just said Protestants didn't like them so they took them out, but now im older im really curious why they did and think im going to have to start reading them

This was sick. Could you do a video like this but going through papal authority and recognition of early bishops of the pope’s status as head?

I am so confused about the differences in Christianity, different Bibles, which books of the Bible are valid, and I must say that the trinity has me really really confused. I've been working on trying to be a good Christian for over twenty years now, but this is so complicated and I am so confused

Proud Catholic here..

I have a very heavy heart towards all Protestants in the world and I pity them so much because they were deceived and lied upon. I can't imagine Martin Luther can do such a horrible act of removing these 7 books. He thinks that he was smarter than the early fathers of the church. It is such an unbelievable act. Such an arrogant man. He deceived millions of people throughout history.

As a Latter-day Saint I would like to thank you for this presentation.

One of the best books on this topic is "The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments" by Gary Michuta.

What would be my reference to prove the Apostles were carrying around the Septuagint version of the Old Testament around for teaching?

Possible I'm overlooking, but I don't see a link to the 70 cross references he said are provided below. Can anyone direct?

What is your opinion of a few additional things beyond these 7, found in Eastern Catholic bibles, such as Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Macabees?

I think that this topic wasn't presented very forthrightly. Melito's reference of 'Wisdom' is widely disputed and may have just been a reference to Proverbs. And even if he does reference Wisdom, that would be the only Deuterocanonical book he included. So is he trustworthy (which would exclude every deuterocanonical book except Wisdom), or untrustworthy (in which case I fail to see why you would use him as evidence)? Likewise with Origen, he included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. So is his inclusion of Baruch and reference to the Maccabees very helpful? He was seen as incorrect with the Shepherd, what faith can we put in the rest of his choices? And again with Augustine, he does include those books you mention. But he doesn't include Baruch in the Synod of 397. Even among the early church fathers you mention to add credibility to the deuterocanonical books, there seems to be widespread disagreement. Am I wrong to see glaring disagreement among the early church fathers about this?

Learning a lot from ya

What are the protocanonical books? How should we define those in history?

Even Marthin Luther want to kick some books in New testament

There seems to be some historical inaccuracies creeping into this discussion. First, the Orthodox Church recognises several books as canonical that the Western Catholic Church do not and the removal of these books took place at the time of the "Great Schism". Second, Luther was not acting arbitrarily according to his predispositions, rather the Protestant Movement chose to follow what had been defined by the Jews as the Jewish Canon. May I suggest rather than bash Luther or bash a Protestant we be a little more gracious and allow that the Protestant version is perhaps best understood as minimalist and their grounds for excluding the books was driven by their preoccupation for certainty regarding Scripture. I'd suggest a reasonable means of resolving the question is not one to be settled between Catholics and Protestants but rather on the basis of the Jewish reasoning for their canon. After all, the OT was and is theirs if only by authorship at the very least.

Hello. Can somebody please point me to where I can find to 70 examples of New Testament references that Dr. Taylor mentioned? Thank you, have a nice day.

what about 1 and 2 Esdras? why is it in my RSV-CI on the bible app if its not accepted in the canon?

I know if origen was around today he would be excommunicated as a heritic. And I'm sure a few others that you listed as well.

The original King James Bible also had at least a dozen footnote references to the 7 books. Those books where not totaled removed from Protestant Bibles until the 19th century. With some notable protest from some of there leaders. Also the famous Gothenburg Bilble 1400’s is identical to current Catholic Bibles

Thank you Dr Marshall. I do not see the 70 criss references of the Deuterocanonical and the New Testament. Can you please help?

Nice

The 1611 Version of the King James Bible, which the Protestants make so much of, also had the Deutero-Canonical texts, and those texts are read in Anglican Churches to this day.

Thank you for the information in this video. I recently overcame by Protestant bias against reading these omitted books and purchased a copy of the 1611 Apocrypha and the Orthodox edition of the NKJV study bible. These books were in the 1611 edition of the KJV then omitted. Is it possible that the omission of these books contributed to the constant fragmentation of Protestantism? BTW, thumbs up.

I was waiting to see when and what scripture did the 12 Apostles quote or reference in the extra books ? Because from what I heard is they never did.

More NSTI freebies for KZfaq plz. At least once a month?

Thank you for these lessons you gift us. They provide us the tools to spread the Word. God loves us so much he sent his son with 3 tasks: Teach us his New Covenant, Establish His Church, and die for our sins as the Lamb of God (ending animal sacrifice). This fulfilled the Old Covenant and created the New Covenant.

The Council of Nicaea was the first council under Saint Constantine, Emperor of Rome.

Amen

what about the Prayer of Manasseh. i think the latin vulgate did include this .

The Proteastant bible, composed of 66 books implies the number of man, while the Ethiopian bible contains the 76 books of the Catholic bible plus the book of Enoch to make the God number 77.

The real question is who are the 11 people who disliked this video and why?? Nothing but sited primary sources from Dr. Marshall in this video.

5:40 Laying down the FACTS

We're in the Church of Christ,the Catholic Church!!!!🔥🙏🇵🇷

Luther was determined to make the Bible fit his theology, even if that removing books. From the New Testament, he decided to take out Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation because they didn't fit his teaching of saved by faith alone without works.

Holy tradition (and the pervasive adherence to it) is what preserves the faith once delivered. Because Protestantism has stripped and sanitized itself of all traditions-----they're caught in a rinse and repeat loop that requires each succeeding generation to approach the bible as if they're the first one's to consider its meaning. Ironically, (via the flawed and narcisstic system of sola scriptura) THIS is a tradition. It has been passed on down since the reformation. Even more ironic, most Protestant churches can only trace their roots back a decade or so (at best, 500 years). They always fancy themselves as being on "the cutting edge" and cusp of truth-------as the first one's to properly define and hereby articulate it. Which, in turn, implies that there was no truth until they came along. Which implies that the gates of hell DID prevail against the church--------until Calvin, Luther, Finney, James White or Joel Osteen properly defined it. Calvinism IS the gospel? Lutheranism IS the Gospel? Truth didn't come into fruition until the aforementioned men came along? Well, if that's the case, then Christ is a liar. He said the gates of hell would *not* prevail against the church. If truth disappearing (for 1500 years) from the church isn't a prime example of the prevalence of hell------I don't know what is. This is why I make the claim that sola scriptura is an idolatrous system of self-worship. Yet, they have the audacity to point fingers as things such as iconography and declare it "idolatry". Not realizing that truth requires a context (in order to rightly comprehend, apply, articulate and interpret it): they misconstrue "harmenuetics" as being one in the same with infalible truth. In other words: they use human understanding as the measure and standard of infallible truth. What's worse, is that many protestants see no problem with this. They only care for their interpretation-------whilst mistaking that interpretation (ignorantly or otherwise) AS inherent and God breathed truth. Tradition is the glue that preserves truth for each succeeding generation. If you take away the glue, it all falls apart. Protestantism: Behold your mother. She is the tradition of a "traditionless"division that is responsible for 40,000+ denominations that all claim to be right----while never being able to agree. Her lifeblood is that of cultural, moral and mental relativism. It is programmed with a spiritual software that downloads the inevitability of self-destruction. Thus the reason why the shelf life of a protestant church has such a small window of operation. Thus the reason why Protestantism comes unglued so quickly (while adapting itself to the world around it--------------until it becomes indistinguishable from the world. Why is it indistinguishable? Because it IS the world. Yes, so as to win the World----protestantism has become the world. Protestantism is the rinse and repeat madness that's presently self destructing because of the fact Calvin and Luther's system of anti-traditionalism has been ignorantly sown in the spiritual soil of reformed theology. The harvest that springs from the soil is pre-programmed to self-destruct. This would explain the influx of Protestants into the EOC and RCC. If you don't believe that tradition matters, stop eating dinner with your kids every night and see how it negatively affects the structure of the family. If you don't believe tradition matters, stop adhering to your traditional wedding vows and just observe how quickly your marriage falls apart. If you don't believe tradition matters, just observe the abolition of traditional values (in our modern society) and you'll see a society that's coming apart at the seams. Tradition is the mere observance of spiritual reality. Want to know why people are unfulfilled in Protestantism? Because there's no profundity or tangibility to back up their profession. It's all in their head. Remove the glue from the profession, and it all falls apart. Behold Protestantism.

We are so blessed to have so many documents and manuscripts of God’s word. There are more than 35,000 manuscripts in Greek alone. We as Christians are better to stick with the books that Jesus mentioned and all the the books of the New Testament starting from Matthew and ending in the last book of revelation where we are told how things will end up.Jesus said man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the word of God. It is great for believers to start reading from the book of John 14 as this was written for believers.St Peter gives the keys to the kingdom in Acts 2:38. Baptism always followed immediately after believing and is always full immersion.

Very interesting. What of the argument that Jerome, in the Vulgate, separated the deuteros into a section which was useful for learning but not as canonical?

Jesus himself quoted the Septuagint.

I'm curious why you mention Augustine but not Jerome? Jerome flat called your extra books apocryphal and went one step further and said they were not in the canon; Jerome, Prefaces Samuel and Kings. The fact is while they were included in the LXX and the vulgate they were never considered canonical. Luther didn't remove a thing. His n.t. had every book we have and his o.t. had every book found in a roman catholic bible. Its extremely poor scholarship and research to suggest he did.

Any chance someone has a site that lists the dozens of places the New Testament refers to the deuterocanonical books? Thanks

They removed those books to justify their own doctrines...

Protestant arguments against the deuterocanon are ridiculous because their position is ridiculous. Even though this video is pretty good as a beginners guide, there are things that should've been added about Josephus and the like. I'll make a response to this comment dedicated to those details.

So if Catholics accept the Greek Septuagint, why do they exclude some books from it? Such as 1 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, psalm 151 and the prayer of Manasseh?

Perhaps the *22* books that Josephus wrote as the Judean canon of the OT, correspond to the books of Samuel (I and II Samuel) and Kings (I and II Kings) being one book together at an earlier time. The Eastern Orthodox Church calls I and II Samuel as I and II Kingdoms, respectively. And also Joshua and Judges being merged together.

In his 1984 Concise Exposition of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology Fr. Michael Pomazansky enumerates and identifies the 38 Old Testament books (Judges-Ruth are bundled) recognized by the Church, stating that "a distinction between the canonical and non-canonical books (he lists 10 plus additions to 3 canonical works) has always been maintained in the Church." This agrees with the list of Old Testament books in Philaret of Moscow's 1823 Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, which cites as reasoning the consensus of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, and (like Pomazansky) John of Damascus. So, it seems there exists at least a 1700-year-old tradition, especially in the East, of viewing the Protocanonical books as approved in a way that others are not. This is very similar to the historical Protestant position (1611 KJV). By stating that various Deuterocanonical works must be considered by the faithful as on par with the Protocanon the Council of Trent unwisely disregarded the traditions of fellow Christians with an all or nothing approach almost entirely unique to Rome.

Great video Thank you and God bless 😇