Why do Catholics/Orthodox place the apocryphal books among the Old Testament canon?

The better question is why they are separated at all.

The Orthodox use the Septuagint -- the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made by Hebrew scholars in the 2-3rd century BC. It has 49 books, not Protestantism's 39. This is the version that is quoted in the New Testament, and is the earliest Bible of the Church. We use them right where they were found at the time of Christ.

All Christianity recognized them as inspired for 1500 years before Protestantism decided otherwise. What was the basis? Protestantism adopted the Hebrew scriptures that were finally settled within Judaism no earlier than the 3rd century AD, and likely much later. The Church had already used these for more than 200 years, had long separated from Judaism over its rejection of Christ -- and we should care what books they drop or keep? We did not, and we do not. We keep the books that Jesus used. It is our canon.

The books that Judaism dropped were dropped precisely because they bolstered certain Christian doctrines. Protestantism, have decided a priori that these doctrines were false, sided with the Jews! It was an amazing development.

But the Church keeps the Old Testament intact.

Forgive me.

/Orthodox

None of the books selected when the Holy Bible was first compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit at the end of the 4th Century are "apocryphal". Apocryphal writings by definition are works that were never part of the Holy Bible. If the bishops made 7 mistakes in the selection of the 73 books, then every book is suspect. It's all or nothing. We can either know that the 73 books are divinely inspired, or not know for sure if any book is divinely inspired.

The real question is, who had the authority to remove from the Holy Bible books that every Christian on Earth had treated as canonical for the previous 1,200 years? Especially considering that that same man fully intended to remove three New Testament books as well, but had to back down when his own followers were at the point of rebellion over trashing the writings of the Apostles. If Luther had his way, Protestants today would be using an incomplete Bible of 63 books instead of the incomplete Bible of 66 books they do use - just one of the many ways they have rejected the beliefs and practices of original and complete Christianity.

And don't worry, His Church does know what is undoubtedly inspired. Its founder, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, promised the leadership of the one Church He founded, and no other, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me".

.

O T Apocrypha

Old Testament Apocrypha: These documents are the only Bible-like record of the Inter-testament Period. The Bible record ends with Malachi, there is a 400 year period, then the birth of Christ and the beginning of the New Testament record. Some of these books are historical in nature.

Old Testament Apocrypha: "Profitable and good to read." Martin Luther "If not inspired, inspiring."

"The Old Testament apocrypha have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries. Protestant churches generally exclude the apocrypha (though the King James version of 1611 included them). The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include all of the apocrypha (except for the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh), but refer to them as "deuteron-canonical" books. In this context, the term "apocrypha" generally refers to writings entirely outside of the biblical canon and not considered inspired (such as the Gospel of Thomas). These same books are referred to by Protestants as the "pseudoepigrapha."

These documents provide an indispensable resource for churches relying totally on the 1611 King James Version.

Some documents are scanned, others are edited for readability and by the addition of links to other resources. In time, we will annotate most of these documents to show the background to Biblical allusions.

1 Esdras

2 Esdras (4 Ezra)

1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees

3 Maccabees

4 Maccabees

Baruch

Bel and the Dragon

Daniel and Susanna (addition to Daniel)

Ecclesiasticus,

Esther

Judith

Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch Chapter 6)

Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews

Prayer of Manasseh (Addition to Daniel)

Prayer of Manasseh (in Appendix to Vulgate)

Psalm 151

Sirach, Wisdom of or Ecclesiasticus

Susanna

Testament of Job

Tobit

Wisdom of Solomon

_______________

They are only "apocryphal" to the Protestant faiths which deleted them from the canon. This was done in part by King James who ordered a new translation of the Bible because the previous English translation showed clearly the Biblical references to what Protestants have chose to ignore (such as references to what we call "Purgatory", and the fact that Henry VIII's break from the Church was not Biblically justifiable. His solution: delete 6 books, a psalm, and sections and passages of other books. The canon included what you call "apocryphal" books for 1,611 years. For that matter it is only fairly recently that these deleted books have been defined as apocryphal. For most of the last 400 years they were dropped with no other mention of them .. as if they never existed.

Why do Protestants distinguish them? In fact, why do Roman Catholics distinguish them?

There is no distinction.

The Septuagint--the OLDEST complete Old Testament we have--contains the "apocryphal" books. I honestly cannot see a logical reason to deny them at all. The Masoretic text is newer and was compiled by Jews after Christianity split from Judaism; the decision of Jews to remove certain books should have no bearing on Christianity at all.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, there is no distinction between the Old Testament and the "Apocrypha," well, at least not in the same way as the West. In Orthodoxy, we distinguish books NOT by "what is Canon/valid" but by the level of spiritual importance. Even the books of the Bible are distinguished based on their level of spiritual importance--the Gospels being the most important. The Deuterocanonicals (what you call "Apocrypha") are merely at the bottom rank when it comes to spiritual importance, however, they still are Scripture and there is no denying that.

The entire Bible is inspired and not just those parts that tickle ones ears.

In first century Jerusalem there were at least four OT Canons in use by different Jewish Groups. There was the Canon of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Ethiopian Jews and the Diaspora/Essene Jews. Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint which was the Canon of the Diaspora/Essenes. We know this because it is quoted in the New Testament. This Canon continued to be the Canon of Christians until after the Reformation and, in fact until about 200 years ago when the Protestants adopted a condensed version of the Canon eliminating the Deuterocanonicals from their Bibles. Even the AKJ originally contained the complete Christian Canon. It has been said by critics of Christ’s Church that the Deuterocanonicals were never believed to be inspired and just the opposite is true. The decision by Christians as to which books are inspired and useful for teaching was decided at the African Synods in the late fourth and early fifth century. There was never a question about their inspiration.

The OT Canon chosen by the Protestants is actually a Jewish Canon not chosen by the Jews until after the establishment of Christianity as a result of the spread of Christianity to slow the growth of the new group in Jerusalem after the fall of the Temple in 70AD. Until then as I said previously there were many Canons in use. The adoption of the Canon missing the Deuterocanonicals united the Jews against the Christians was decided in the Jewish Council of Jamnia because the Deuterocanonicals referred too strongly to the Messiah fulfilled in Christ.

Some Protestants will claim that only the Jews have the authority to choose Canon but the Church deferred that decision to Christ and the disciples and it is clear through biblical research, that the Septuagint is the Bible used by the first century Church and quoted in the NT Scriptures. The fact that Protestants choose to adopt the Canon that was approved by the same Jews that accused our Lord that resulted in His crucifixion suggests the source of this confusion as from the father of lies who led the Pharisees to accuse Christ and petition for His punishment. It is another way that Satan divides the body of Christ and separates the faithful denying Christ’s prayer that we all be one in Christ through His Church. The Christian Church has always used the Septuagint as Canon and never the truncated version of modernist Protestants.

Some Protestants erroneously believe that Catholics added to the Bible with the Deuterocanonicals but this shows an ignorance of their own history and the history of Christianity as witnessed by Christ’s Church. The facts are that the Protestants removed the Deuterocanonicals and even considered strongly to remove some of the NT books currently in use by Protestants and Catholics. Fr. Martin Luther was in favor of removing the book of James because it conflicted with His heretical man made doctrines of the “Solas”, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. The heretic Ulrich Zwingli wanted to remove the Gospel of John because of its teaching of the commandment to Eat Christ’s Body and drink His Blood which contradicted his view of a real absence of Christ instead of a real presence in the Eucharist. Even Fr. Martin Luther could not endorse such a departure from Scriptures and deny that Christ is truly and really present in the Eucharist in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

In Christ

Fr. Joseph

These books are not apocryphal according to the Catholic/Orthodox. My apology to the Orthodox if I'm wrong, but I think the Orthodox have more books in their bibles than the Catholics do.

The key to answering your question is in the terminology used. Catholics do not call them the "Apocrypha". Catholics refer to them as the "Deuterocanonicals", meaning "those books added to the canon later".

they were part of the original bible , not added after the reformation as some suggest. the very first bible printed called the Gutenberg bible contains the full 73 books a century before martin luther left the church

The question should be "Why did the Protestants take them out?". The books were in the Bible until the Reformation when they were removed. Don't ask the Catholics, the Bible always had those books, ask the Protestants why they aren't there any more.