Which Of The 7 Deuterocanonical Books Are In The Old Testament?

Okay, quick rundown that I actually enjoy saying out loud when someone asks: the seven deuterocanonical books are 'Tobit', 'Judith', 'Wisdom' (sometimes 'Wisdom of Solomon'), 'Sirach' (also called 'Ecclesiasticus'), 'Baruch', '1 Maccabees', and '2 Maccabees'. I like to tuck a tiny bit of context onto each: 'Tobit' has that almost fairy-tale vibe with Tobit and Tobias and a helpful angel; 'Judith' reads like a dramatic hero story; 'Wisdom' is philosophical and poetic; 'Sirach' is full of practical sayings and ethical reflections; 'Baruch' contains prayers and reflections and is sometimes paired with the 'Letter of Jeremiah'; the 'Maccabees' are history and revolt—brave, messy, and politically charged. These books appear in the Septuagint and are accepted by Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions but are excluded from most Protestant Bibles, which often label them as apocrypha. I get a little thrill connecting how different communities value different texts—it's like tracing family trees of faith and literature, and it makes me want to dip back into 'Wisdom' and 'Sirach' on a rainy afternoon.

If you flip through an old lectionary or a medieval Bible, the reason becomes pretty obvious: those seven books have been part of mainstream Christian reading for centuries. They show up in the Greek 'Septuagint', which was the Bible many Jews used in the Hellenistic world and which most early Christians read and quoted. Because early Christians — from church leaders to ordinary worshippers — used the 'Septuagint' and read from books like 'Tobit', 'Judith', '1 Maccabees', '2 Maccabees', 'Wisdom', 'Sirach', and 'Baruch', the books became woven into preaching and liturgy. That practical, lived use is huge: if a community regularly reads and prays with certain texts, they tend to treat them as authoritative. Two more threads tie this together: patristic endorsement and ecclesial decisions. Influential figures like Augustine defended these books, and local councils in North Africa (like Hippo and Carthage) listed them. Then the Latin tradition — Jerome’s Vulgate, despite his qualms — preserved them for Western Christians. Finally, the Council of Trent in the 16th century formally reaffirmed these books as canonical for Catholics, largely in response to Protestant rejection. So acceptance isn’t purely academic; it’s historical usage, theological fit with Church teaching, and official ecclesial affirmation—all braided together. Personally, I like how the acceptance reflects continuity of worship and practice rather than a single moment of invention.

Okay, this is one of those topics that gets me nerdy-excited: the seven books usually singled out as deuterocanonical — 'Tobit', 'Judith', the Additions to 'Esther' (often treated as part of 'Esther'), 'Wisdom' (the Wisdom of Solomon), 'Sirach' (Ecclesiasticus), 'Baruch' (including the Letter of Jeremiah), and 1 & 2 'Maccabees' — show up in a patchwork of ancient manuscripts and translation traditions. The big umbrella is the Greek Septuagint tradition, so the chief witnesses are important codices like 'Codex Vaticanus', 'Codex Sinaiticus', and 'Codex Alexandrinus', which preserve many of these books in Greek. They’re not all identical in what they include or where the books appear, but these three are primary LXX witnesses. Beyond the Greek, the Latin tradition (the 'Vetus Latina' manuscripts and later the 'Vulgate') carries virtually all of these books in Western churches. Then you have other ancient translations — Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, and Coptic manuscripts — which often preserve one or more deuterocanonical books that might be missing in a particular Greek codex. Archaeologically, Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) delivered fragments of some, especially 'Tobit' and texts related to 'Sirach', so there’s even Hebrew/Aramaic backing for parts of the collection. So, in short: look to the major Septuagint codices ('Vaticanus', 'Sinaiticus', 'Alexandrinus') and to the Latin and eastern translation traditions if you want surviving manuscripts of the seven deuterocanonical books.

Scholars date the deuterocanonical books by stitching together linguistic clues, historical references, manuscript evidence, and early citations — it feels a bit like assembling a mosaic where some tiles are missing. I usually think of it in three layers: internal clues (what the text mentions about politics, rulers, or events), language and style (is the Greek smooth Hellenistic koine or a clunky translation from Hebrew/Aramaic full of Semitic syntax?), and external witnesses (where and when do other writers quote it and which manuscripts preserve it). Take 'Wisdom of Solomon' and 'Sirach' as examples: the first reads like Alexandrian Greek with clear Hellenistic philosophical influence, so scholars push it into the late second to first century BCE in Egypt; 'Sirach' preserves Hebrew and has Hebrew fragments from the late Second Temple period, so its composition is usually placed around 200–175 BCE with a Greek translation circulating not long after. For 'Tobit' and the additions to 'Esther' there are Aramaic/Hebrew traces and Greek versions; fragments of Tobit were even found among late Second Temple collections, which narrows its window to a few centuries before Christ. Finally, patristic lists and the Septuagint/Vulgate traditions give a terminus ante quem — if Origen, Jerome, or early liturgies cite a book in the second or fourth century CE, it must predate that citation. None of these methods is perfect on its own, so scholars weigh them together and argue by probabilities rather than certainties. I love this detective work because it blends language nerding with real history, and you can almost hear different communities reading these books across centuries.

Honestly, when I dive into those older texts like 'Tobit', 'Judith', the additions to 'Esther', 'Wisdom of Solomon', 'Sirach', 'Baruch', and the two 'Maccabees', I feel like I'm wandering through a cultural crossroads where faith, survival, and philosophy keep bumping into each other. One big thread is providence — these books constantly invite you to see history as shaped by a moral God who rewards justice and punishes wickedness. In 'Tobit' you get domestic piety and angels; in 'Wisdom of Solomon' you get high theology about the immortality of the soul; in '1 & 2 Maccabees' there’s the gritty heroism of resistance and martyrdom. Another theme is practical wisdom and ethics. 'Sirach' (Ecclesiasticus) reads like a handbook of living, focused on generosity, humility, and the right kind of speech. Social justice shows up too: concern for the poor, punishments for corrupt leaders, and calls to repent. Even stylistically they vary — narrative, prayer, poetic reflection — but the moral, communal heartbeat is steady. If you like how stories teach values, these books are a treasure trove that reads like both Sunday advice and ancient soap opera, and I always come away thinking about how they shaped later religious imagination.

Alright, I'll lay this out like I'm telling a friend over coffee: the seven deuterocanonical books that the Catholic Church recognizes are 'Tobit', 'Judith', 'Wisdom of Solomon', 'Sirach' (also called 'Ecclesiasticus'), 'Baruch' (including the 'Letter of Jeremiah'), and '1' and '2 Maccabees'. Those titles show up in a number of early Western lists and were commonly used in the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament many early Christians read. If you want the club of councils that explicitly treated those books as canonical, the key Western milestones are the synod or council associated with Rome around 382 (often connected with Pope Damasus' catalog), the Council of Hippo in 393, and the Councils of Carthage in 397 and again in 419. Those regional councils included the deuterocanonical books in their canon lists. Much later, when questions about the canon flared up during the Reformation, the Church reasserted the full list at the Council of Florence and then dogmatically at the Council of Trent in 1546. The Eastern churches tended to preserve these books through their reliance on the Septuagint and various local synods, so acceptance was often more about practice than a single decree. If you're chasing original documents, the Carthaginian canons and the Decree of Trent are the most cited sources—pretty cool history to dig into if you like dusty manuscripts and theological debates.

I get oddly excited talking about liturgical books, so here's the short tour I usually give friends who ask: yes, the Catholic lectionary does include the seven deuterocanonical books. You'll find selections from 'Tobit', 'Judith', 'Wisdom', 'Sirach' (sometimes called 'Ecclesiasticus'), 'Baruch', and both '1 Maccabees' and '2 Maccabees' sprinkled through the Old Testament readings. There are also the additions to 'Daniel' and 'Esther'—bits like the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three, 'Susanna', and 'Bel and the Dragon'—that appear in lectionary choices. Those readings appear in the first-reading slots (the Old Testament part of the Liturgy of the Word) across Sundays and weekdays, and they show up in the Liturgy of the Hours too. The exact placement can depend on the liturgical season and the national bishops’ conference, so different countries sometimes emphasize different passages. Historically the Catholic Church affirmed these books at Trent, which is why they’re part of the canon and therefore part of the public liturgical readings—handy to know if you’re comparing Bibles or following scripture at Mass.

Flipping through different Bible editions always throws me a small, fascinating puzzle: where are those seven books and how are they treated today? In my experience the short history matters. Those books — like 'Tobit', 'Judith', 'Wisdom', 'Sirach', 'Baruch', and additions to 'Daniel' and 'Esther' — come from the Greek tradition that the 'Septuagint' preserved. The medieval 'Vulgate' carried them into Catholic usage, so they ended up canonical in the West. Modern translations reflect that tangled past: Catholic editions (think 'New American Bible' or 'Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition') include them as integral parts of the Old Testament. Protestant translations often took a different route, preferring the Hebrew Masoretic text as the Old Testament base and moving those works to an 'Apocrypha' section or omitting them entirely. Meanwhile Orthodox editions usually include even more texts from the 'Septuagint'. Today you'll also find ecumenical translations like the 'New Revised Standard Version' that place the deuterocanonical books in the main body or in a clearly labeled section with scholarly notes. I usually flip to the notes to see manuscript choices and how translators handled Greek versus Hebrew traditions — that’s where the real story lives.