The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

[Kalevalatar]

If the apocrapha was mentioned just in passing then the Lutheran chruch fathers had relagated it to its proper place and that it was just a "good read". If you consider one quote in the BOC among hundreds of pages as supportive of the apocrapha then you are falling for the same "schlock" that passes for authoritative theology in the Lutheran church. People ask in another thread why there has been an exodus to the EO and it's just becasue of this nonsense promoted on this thread that "other" sources are beneficial for correct theology or more than just a good read. CPH is notorious for promoting "wrong" theology. Just look at the series on Bonhoeffer sitting on their shelves. I havn't counted the books but there are close to 20 of them.

Luther and Melanchthon did, however, take the trouble of translating the Apocryphal books and including them in the Luther Bible, as opposed to simply letting these text be and be forgotten with time. For this, they have been part of our cultural tradition -- European cultural history -- and our Bible translations ever since.

I'm, obviously, not aware of CPH or CPH's publishing policies. I do, however, know that the Apocrypha have been part of our Lutheran tradition wholly apart from what goes on on the American continent.

I think the point is, if one wants nothing to do with these books, no harm done; and if one is interested in familiarizing oneself with these books, no harm done there either, i.e. "useful and good to read". These new modern translations offer these books in an accessible language for those who prefer them included in their Bibles. Those who do not can pick Bibles which exclude these books.

 

[Chemnitz]

Kale is quite right, I'll add that I think resistance to their re-inclusion amounts to a sort of low-brow cultural evangelicalistic reaction.

To sum up:

1. They were in Luther's Bibel.

2. They represent part of what is, really, the "majority text" for the western church, and

3. They are very useful for understanding the history and religious developments of the inter-testamental period and this is the stated purpose for why CPH is considering reintroducing them.

 

[seajoy]

I'll add that I think resistance to their re-inclusion amounts to a sort of low-brow cultural evangelicalistic reaction.

Good grief.

 

[Melethiel]

Kale is quite right, I'll add that I think resistance to their re-inclusion amounts to a sort of low-brow cultural evangelicalistic reaction.

To sum up:

1. They were in Luther's Bibel.

2. They represent part of what is, really, the "majority text" for the western church, and

3. They are very useful for understanding the history and religious developments of the inter-testamental period and this is the stated purpose for why CPH is considering reintroducing them.

Agreed. American Lutheranism in general has become way too low-brow evangelicalistic for my taste. Don't want to look too Catholic, after all!

 

[BoC]

Kale is quite right, I'll add that I think resistance to their re-inclusion amounts to a sort of low-brow cultural evangelicalistic reaction.

To sum up:

1. They were in Luther's Bibel.

2. They represent part of what is, really, the "majority text" for the western church, and

3. They are very useful for understanding the history and religious developments of the inter-testamental period and this is the stated purpose for why CPH is considering reintroducing them.

Next thing you know CPH will put out a readers edition on the Gnostics. You banter around CHemnitz's name but you ought to look up what he thought about the apocrypha.

"The historical fact that the Early Church differentiated between the homologoumena and the antilegomena cannot be changed by a resolution of the later Church. Luther, too, abides by this judgment of the primitive Church; he says, appealing to Eusebius (Church History III, 25), that in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse “had a different reputation.” He finds much excellent instruction in the antilegomena, grants that the offensive passages may be explained acceptably by “glosses,” and will keep no one from appraising them as he sees fit. But he will not class them with the “right certain chief books of the New Testament.” As for himself, he will let the doubt entertained by the Early Church remain. Chemnitz denounced the action of the Roman Catholic Church in declaring the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the antilegomena of the New Testament a part of the canon of Scripture by a mere decree and in anathematizing all those who refused to accept the canon fixed in the Vulgate, as anti-Christian."4

4. Tridentinum, Sess. IV: “But if anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books [the Old Testament plus the Apocrypha, the New Testament, including the antilegomena] entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition ... let him be anathema.”

The Witness of History for Scripture
by: Francis Pieper.

 

[Chemnitz]

And yet you will never find Chemnitz saying that they should not be included.

You've introduced a red herring here. On the one hand, no one is saying that these books are canonical or divinely inspired, and on the other hand, you won't find any of the Reformers saying that they shouldn't be included as apocryphal.

The actual history is that for the whole of Western Christians up until the Reformation, these books were enclosed within the pages of Scripture. Now, there was a lot of debate on whether the books are canonical with the Reformers concluding (with the best scholarship of their day, and, I believe, rightly) that they are not.

What is not happening here is any effort on anyone's part to require you to accept them as canonical and inspired. You don't have to buy any edition of the Bible with them in it and I doubt they will ever make it into the lectionary. No one is saying that they are Scripture.

What is being said is that they are part of the history of the church and the people of God, once enclosed within the canon of Scripture by some but largely reckoned apocryphal now and that they are worthy of our study and perusal as remarkable documents indicating the religious and political life of the Jews between the close of the Old Testament and the birth of the Redeemer.

Again, if they were good enough for Luther, they're good enough for me. It is worth noting that the translators of the Authorized version of the English Bible (1611, commonly called the King James Version) also included them.

If you don't like them that's fine, but I have to admit that I find it very odd that a confessional people; a people who understand the value of secondary authorities and have no difficulty not placing them on par with Scripture would have any resistance to the idea that these Old Testament Apocrypha might be worth translating, printing and reading.

My remark about "low-brow evangelicalism" was in reference to Lutherans who have been informed and shaped far more by the common "christian" culture, replete with anti-catholicism and rugged individualism, than by a true and wholesome apprehension of the spirit of the Reformation to be found in orthodox Evangelical Lutheranism. And the church is full of them, people who would rather listen to James Dobson and Hank Hanegraaf than their own tradition.

 

[BoC]

If you don't like them that's fine, but I have to admit that I find it very odd that a confessional people; a people who understand the value of secondary authorities and have no difficulty not placing them on par with Scripture would have any resistance to the idea that these Old Testament Apocrypha might be worth translating, printing and reading.

My remark about "low-brow evangelicalism" was in reference to Lutherans who have been informed and shaped far more by the common "christian" culture, replete with anti-catholicism and rugged individualism, than by a true and wholesome apprehension of the spirit of the Reformation to be found in orthodox Evangelical Lutheranism. And the church is full of them, people who would rather listen to James Dobson and Hank Hanegraaf than their own tradition.

Actually you are splitting hairs on their importance. They are neither important or non-important. As I said previously, they are not canon and any conservative confessional can take them or leave them since their function is not to herald the comming of the Messiah like most of the OT. They are just a good historical read, like reading Homer or The Illiad, but with conectivity to the Bible. Historically I would put more credence on Josephus' historical writings.

It has nothing to do with low brow or high brow evangelicalism. Stereotyping and then telling us what they believe is counter-productive since you are contributing attributes to that group that are not totally correct.

confessional people; a people who understand the value of secondary authorities and have no difficulty not placing them on par with Scripture would have any resistance to the idea that these Old Testament Apocrypha might be worth translating, printing and reading.

You just stated why.

BTW anti-RCC is prevelant in all segments of Luthernism except maybe the ELCA.

 

[seajoy]

My remark about "low-brow evangelicalism" was in reference to Lutherans who have been informed and shaped far more by the common "christian" culture, replete with anti-catholicism and rugged individualism, than by a true and wholesome apprehension of the spirit of the Reformation to be found in orthodox Evangelical Lutheranism. And the church is full of them, people who would rather listen to James Dobson and Hank Hanegraaf than their own tradition.

Thanks for your judgement without even knowing me. Is that part of orthodox Evangelical Lutheranism too?

 

[seajoy]

I guess without the Apocrypha I'm just not Lutheran enough for this board anymore.

 

[Melethiel]

BTW anti-RCC is prevelant in all segments of Luthernism except maybe the ELCA.

Which is sad. The baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.

As I said previously, they are not canon and any conservative confessional can take them or leave them since their function is not to herald the comming of the Messiah like most of the OT.

Wisdom of Solomon gets pretty messianic at times...

​

 

[Chemnitz]

Seajoy,

I wasn't talking about anyone in particular. I was talking about a trend.

I also made no judgment about the "Lutheranity" of anyone. In reality, I am pretty unorthodox by the standards of many Missouri Synod Lutherans, to give just a few examples: I think "Christian News" is, for the most part, ridiculous, I accept evolution as a viable explanation for the origin and differentiation in species and I vote democrat in local elections.

So, in all likelihood, by the standards of the "Exquisitely Lutheran" hereabouts, I stand several places behind you and most others in my Lutheran bona fides.

 

[Chemnitz]

BoC,

I think we are probably in fundamental agreement. My remarks about "Low Brow Evangelicalism" was an opinion about an observation I have made of certain segments of our confession which may or may not apply to anyone here.

 

[BigNorsk]

If the apocrapha was mentioned just in passing then the Lutheran chruch fathers had relagated it to its proper place and that it was just a "good read". If you consider one quote in the BOC among hundreds of pages as supportive of the apocrapha then you are falling for the same "schlock" that passes for authoritative theology in the Lutheran church. People ask in another thread why there has been an exodus to the EO and it's just becasue of this nonsense promoted on this thread that "other" sources are beneficial for correct theology or more than just a good read. CPH is notorious for promoting "wrong" theology. Just look at the series on Bonhoeffer sitting on their shelves. I havn't counted the books but there are close to 20 of them.

Maybe this one will get through, I keep getting errors when I post and the post is lost.

Anyway, I gave those examples because you said they aren't mentioned in the BOC, which is just flatly incorrect.

As for biblical references, it does get a bit iffy, we don't see word for word quotes, but them many of the Old Testament references we acknowledge aren't word for word either.

The KJV and the original Geneva for instance cross referenced the New Testament with the Apocryphal books. None of those translators were what you seem to be accusing anyone who doesn't want to throw them away of.

I don't think we are well served by losing history. That would just tend to turn us into Baptists. Losing history is also something that happens when people turn to Orthodoxy or Catholicism in the belief they are somehow going to the historic church. Whereas they are leaving it.

See the big problem is where did you get the idea that anyone is saying the Apocrypha is authoritative? I certainly didn't. Do you understand what is meant by the ecclesiatical canon?

If you'd like, I have Martin Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent, he really goes into this. We could talk about his understanding, which I agree with. I don't think you do. You put them on the level of a good read. The reformers didn't say they were a good read, they said they are good to read.

Some of them are a pretty good read and frankly a couple are pretty much junk.

Some of the early New Testament writings are certainly worth reading too. For instance our Protestant ending of the Lord's prayer actually was first recorded in noncanonical writings, it made a trip backwards into some manuscripts but the Catholics end the Lords Prayer where scripture does.

Thing is our ending is true, it has been used throughout the history of the church, I see no reason to abandon it just because it isn't a word for word quote of scripture. Do you?

 

[Tangible]

Here's a couple more pretty good links if you're interested.

The Apocrypha — Missing in Action in the Lutheran Church | CyberBrethren-A Lutheran Blog

Judy! Judy! Judy! Intro to the Apocrypha

 

[Chemnitz]

The story of Judith and Holofernes is pretty cool.

 

[BoC]

Maybe this one will get through, I keep getting errors when I post and the post is lost.

Anyway, I gave those examples because you said they aren't mentioned in the BOC, which is just flatly incorrect.

As for biblical references, it does get a bit iffy, we don't see word for word quotes, but them many of the Old Testament references we acknowledge aren't word for word either.

The KJV and the original Geneva for instance cross referenced the New Testament with the Apocryphal books. None of those translators were what you seem to be accusing anyone who doesn't want to throw them away of.

I don't think we are well served by losing history. That would just tend to turn us into Baptists. Losing history is also something that happens when people turn to Orthodoxy or Catholicism in the belief they are somehow going to the historic church. Whereas they are leaving it.

See the big problem is where did you get the idea that anyone is saying the Apocrypha is authoritative? I certainly didn't. Do you understand what is meant by the ecclesiatical canon?

If you'd like, I have Martin Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent, he really goes into this. We could talk about his understanding, which I agree with. I don't think you do. You put them on the level of a good read. The reformers didn't say they were a good read, they said they are good to read.

Some of them are a pretty good read and frankly a couple are pretty much junk.

Some of the early New Testament writings are certainly worth reading too. For instance our Protestant ending of the Lord's prayer actually was first recorded in noncanonical writings, it made a trip backwards into some manuscripts but the Catholics end the Lords Prayer where scripture does.

Thing is our ending is true, it has been used throughout the history of the church, I see no reason to abandon it just because it isn't a word for word quote of scripture. Do you?

. You are correct. Maccabees is mentioned in the BOC. One time.And it was called scripture. One time. Probably an oversite on Chemnitz's part since the BOC isn't inspired scripture, it could have mistakes.

I dont really care if anyone reads it or not. I've read some of it and enjoyed it also. It has already been translated into many books and languages and has been read by many. My whole point is that CPH just gets under my skin when I read their selection of material which has more leanings toward other denoms and less on confessional Lutheranism. That's what started this off for me. CPH is just a sounding board for church growth advocates, aberant theology and outside influences that are not traditional Lutheranism. Even the I picked up an older edition of "Concordia, A Lutheran Confession" edited by Paul McCain in 2006, I think. It had to be re-edited becasue of emphasis on Stephanism and advocating hypo-euroism.

 

[filosofer]

From a little historical perspective, today is the best that CPH has been in at least 45 years.

CPH is so far ahead of what it offered in the 1965-1995 time period. At that time there were maybe 10 solid Lutheran writings published by CPH; no new commentaries; no good systematic books; etc.

Today in light of that history, it is a true festival of solid offerings. Might there be a few light weights? Yep, some with reformed/evangelical influence, yep. But I'll take CPH's current offerings over anything it prepared in the past 45 years.

From an old codger, who doesn't count much any more....

 

[BoC]

OK so CPH and the Apocrypha seem to be the favorite toy of most people on here so I'm wasting my time even comenting.

Filo I think that some groups/people were gravatating to NPH so CPH might have had a wake up call.

 

[DaRev]

From a little historical perspective, today is the best that CPH has been in at least 45 years.

CPH is so far ahead of what it offered in the 1965-1995 time period. At that time there were maybe 10 solid Lutheran writings published by CPH; no new commentaries; no good systematic books; etc.

Today in light of that history, it is a true festival of solid offerings. Might there be a few light weights? Yep, some with reformed/evangelical influence, yep. But I'll take CPH's current offerings over anything it prepared in the past 45 years.

From an old codger, who doesn't count much any more....

Das ist gewibliche wahr. It's refreshing to see CPH concentrating on more Confessional materials in addition to such things as the new Concordia Commentary series, works by Walther, and others.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Das ist gewibliche wahr. It's refreshing to see CPH concentrating on more Confessional materials in addition to such things as the new Concordia Commentary series, works by Walther, and others.

It is. Materials from there were kind of lightweights for a while. I am enjoying the more Confessional material coming from CPH.

Whatever the reason is for the focus in this direction, it s a good focus.