When were the books of the Apocrypha removed from Protestant Bibles? Why was this done?

by davidjricardo

Clarification: I am familiar with the history and reasons why Protestants and Roman Catholics have different canons of scripture. That is not what I am asking here.

All of the earliest Protestant Bibles - the Lutherbibel, the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible, etc. - contained the Apocrypha in a separate section. Today it is very rare (at least in the United States) for a Protestant Bible to contain these books. When did the Apocrypha stop appearing in Protestant bibles? What were the reasons for their removal (i.e. economic, political, theological, etc.)?

Platypuskeeper

The Lutheran former state church here in Sweden has produced an official bible translation every century since the reformation, in 1541, 1618, 1703, 1917 and 2000. Every one has contained the apocrypha in the same manner, the canon was not changed.

However the actual texts have changed. Compare Tobit 1:1 for instance (being a rather divergent verse I know of offhand); the 1541 Vasa Bible translation is:

Chet[sic] war en man benemnd Tobias uthaff Naphthali slechte uthaff en stadh i öffwra Galileen offvan Asser widh wäghen på wenstro sidhonne utmoot haffuet.

Which is almost certainly translated (nearly word-for-word) from Luther's Bible and the source is the Vulgate version (as it was the 1541 English Great Bible). Later Swedish translations (and the English KJV) used the "Greek I" sources, on the other hand:

Detta är berättelsen om Tobit, son till Tobiel, son till Hananiel, son till Aduel, son till Gabael, av Asiels släkt, av Neftalims stam.

The discovery of the Oxyrhynchus papyri and scholarship showing the "Greek II" source of Tobit being older, the 2000 translation uses that, as many modern translations do:

Detta är berättelsen om Tobit, son till Tobiel, son till Hananiel, son till Aduel, son till Gabael, son till Rafael, son till Reguel, av Jachasiels släkt och Naftalis stam.

So in short those books have remained there and been treated much like the rest of the Bible even though the church has not changed stances on their theological status. They're still 'technically not' part of the Bible, but in are still printed with it and thus part of it in the literal sense.

Flubb

I answered this briefly in the latter part of a similar thread here.