Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Deuterocanon?

Saucy · Oct 15, 2014

thanks I'll check them out!

scraparcs · Oct 15, 2014

I need to actually read some Deuterocanonical books first and then I shall be able to opine.

Lord Of The Forest · Oct 15, 2014

There are a few terms floating around this thread, so here are a few definitions.

The Deuterocanon (lit. secondary canon) contains books in the Catholic canon which the Protestant canon omits.

Additions to Esther
Tobit
Judith
I and II Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach
Baruch
Additions to Daniel

Pseudepigrapha (not quite lit. false titles) is spurious literature usually attributed to famous personalities of the Bible and usually written in the Intertestamental Period. People are more likely to read the elucidations of Elijah the prophet rather than the thoughts of Judas the peasant.

List taken from the contents of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, James Charlesworth, Ed.

Volume 1 -

APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE AND RELATED WORKS

1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch
2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch
3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch
Sibylline Oracles
Treatise of Shem
Apocryphon of Ezekiel
Apocalypse of Zephaniah
The Fourth Book of Ezra (4 Ezra)
Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
Vision of Ezra
Questions of Ezra
Revelation of Ezra
Apocalypse of Sedrach
2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch
3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch
Apocalypse of Abraham
Apocalypse of Adam
Apocalypse of Elijah
Apocalypse of Daniel

TESTAMENTS (OFTEN WITH APOCALYPTIC SECTIONS)

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Job
Testaments of the Three Patriarchs
Testament of Abraham
Testament of Isaac
Testament of Jacob
Testament of Moses
Testament of Solomon
Testament of Adam

Volume 2 -

EXPANSIONS OF "OLD TESTAMENT" AND LEGENDS

Letter of Aristeas
Jubilees
Maryrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
Joseph and Aseneth
Life of Adam and Eve
Pseudo-Philo
The Lives of the Prophets
Ladder of Jacob
4 Baruch
James and Jambres
History of the Rechabites
Eldad and Modad
History of Joseph

WISDOM AND PHILOSOPHICAL LITERATURE

Ahiqar
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Pseudo-Phocylides
The Sentences of the Syriac Menander

PRAYERS, PSALMS, AND ODES

More Psalms of David
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalms of Solomon
Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers
Prayer of Joseph
Prayer of Jacob
Odes of Solomon

SUPPLEMENT: FRAGMENTS OF LOST JUDEO-HELLENISTIC WORKS

Philo the Epic Poet
Theodotus
Orphica
Ezekiel the Tragedian
Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets
Aristobulus
Demetrius the Chronographer
Aristeas ten Exegete
Eupolemus
Pseudo-Eupolemus
Cleodemus
Artapanus
Pseudo-Hecataeus

Apocrypha (lit. hidden writings) was a term used to denote documents whose authenticity was questioned.

Since most* of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament are correctly identified as pseudepigrapha, here are some examples of New Testament apocrypha:

The Shepherd of Hermas
Acts of Peter
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Apocalypse of Paul
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of Ignatius

Examples of New Testament pseudepigrapha would be the Gnostic documents contained in the Nag Hammadi library.

* Exceptions of Old Testament apocrypha would be the targumim and pesharim found, among other places, in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

This chart which compares ten canons side-by-side also may be helpful.

graciesings · Oct 15, 2014

The post directly above mine is a very good one.

I would only add that a lot of Protestants have named the Deuterocanon "The Apocrypha."

r035198x · Oct 16, 2014

The likening of those books to heresy has arisen because of the increase in the need to define inspired scripture. This need started round about the time of the creeds which themselves are a sign of the need to define what is acceptable and what is not. Today, even in books that everyone accepts there are still debates on what the correct translation should be.
Thus we have some versions of translations (even those containing universally canon books only) being labelled as heresy by some. That does not leave any room for the Deuterocanon, especially given that some of them (Sirach and 2 Maccabees actually hint in themselves at not being inspired. The modern person reads only the highest rated response in a Q&A forum, buys only the highest rated products, downloads only the most downloaded apps. Just not much room for secondary.

DaedraSun · Oct 16, 2014

With regards to the Didache, considered an Apocryphal work, the whole book can be consumed in 30 minutes watching this video.

The Disciples of Jesus teach the Church - Listen to your real Pastors: THE DIDACHE - YouTube

Regular readers of Matthew will recognize much here, Jewish readers will recognize some common practices, and chapter 11 is enough, in my mind at least - to explain it's exclusion from the bible and doubts of it's authenticity.

The video maker has accentuated some parts with extra reverb and delay for effect, lol...forgive the creative license.

SnowyMacie · Oct 16, 2014

Even our own protestant cannon isn't entirely free from controversy.

Here's a wikipedia page all about it:
Antilegomena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dmpeace · Oct 16, 2014

Lord Of The Forest said:
It's interesting that extrabiblical books largely mean the same things to everyone. Roman Catholics will point out spurious documents and heresy; so will Protestants.

I have no problem with the deuterocanon. It appears to be quoted multiple times in the New Testament, and that's sufficient reason for me to believe it has merit.

Jude contains extensive (uncredited) quotations from the pseudepigraphic Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch, but contextually, it appears the author does not approve its contents; quotations from the deuterocanon contain no such caveats.

Good thing the Church in Rome doesn't need to depend on the internet or modern books for its centuries-old documentation.

Tell me-- from 1200 to the Reformation, were there any Christians at all? Also, the Roman Church was around much earlier than the 1200s. Think of the Battle of Hastings. It is, in fact, the oldest denomination.

Then again, I'm neither Protestant nor Evangelical; I'm not even one of those confounded Roman Catholics.[/QUOTE

Rome depends upon itself and self contradicting itself throughout its history. Do some real study on its history and what they teach now. They have way off view of a saving gospel and have added dogmas over the centuries that they just made up. Read their catechism, just for starters they believe if your not baptized or take part of their mass and are not part of the catholic church you are anathema. They added the dogma that Mary was sinless and assumed into heaven and all her heretical views just in the 1950's which Rome will force you to believe in order to enter heaven. So start with their actual documents because I don't feel like taking the time to do it for you.
I see you haven't even begun to study the history of the church. As I stated before the Roman system wasn't in place until around the 1200's and the reformation didn't start with the reformers, they put a name to it. If I had time you could see the "reformed view from the apostles on. Augustine for one and he came a bit later. I could go on and on about the heretical roman system it just takes to long. I've studied plenty of Romes history, church history and if what they taught wasn't so sad it would be funny. So read the Roman catholic catechism and see for yourself if your not aligned with what rome says your anathema.

Lord Of The Forest · Oct 16, 2014

I actually own several copies of the Catechsim--one of myself, and a couple spares if I need to lend them out. I haven't read it all, but I've read them at length, and have enjoyed it tremendously.

You're actually dragging Augustine into this? Now I know you're joking! Friend, your history is riddled with error. If you're getting your history from Chick tracts, Alexander Hislop, and Bob Jones University, you're going to have a bad time.

But this is all terribly off topic.

dmpeace · Oct 16, 2014

Lord Of The Forest · Oct 16, 2014

Early Church? No. Augustine missed that era by a few years. He might be a Post-Nicene Father, though.

No, what I meant to say is that he wasn't 'reformed'. He had some 'reformed theology', but that was reactionary to Pelagius; Augustine's corpus of theology could hardly be considered reformed.

It's been dreadfully fun, but let's try not to derail the thread further; I do hope you have a great day. :wave:

KingCrimson250 · Oct 16, 2014

r035198x said:
Even our own protestant cannon isn't entirely free from controversy.

Yes indeed. Luther himself spent a long time wrestling with whether James, Hebrews, Revelation, and... I want to say 2 Peter? Possibly Jude. Anyway, while he eventually opted to include them, it wasn't without a lot of misgivings.

Then of course there's the whole Esther ordeal.

What's interesting about is that, AFAIK, the Deuterocanon was published in Protestant Bibles up until a century or two ago (or at least, the Catholic Deuterocanon was, I'm assuming the books exclusive to the EO church were left out. Poor EO...). The main reason they stopped including them was budgetary concerns - you could print more Bibles for less money if you just did the straight 66 books.

DMPeace - Substantiate your claims or leave. It's great that you think the Catholic church are a bunch of false-gospel-loving heretics, but back that up with actual sources or stop posting. If you can satisfactorily prove that what you say the Catholic church believes is what it actually believes, then I'll agree with you. As it is now, you're just making wild claims, which I'm not interested in - and frankly, if what you're saying is false, then you've committed some pretty grievous sins against your brothers and sisters in the Catholic church. Provide evidence, or stop posting in the thread.

Rhamiel · Oct 19, 2014

lol HOW DID I MISS THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!

just as a side note, some interesting facts about the Deuterocannon

these were books that were part of the Septuagint, the jewish scriptures that were translated into Greek when the Jews were spread among the various nations, it is believed that all of these books that are only in the Septuagint (the Deuterocanon) were first written in Greek by Jews living in different parts of the Ancient World

remember, that the New Testament was written in Greek, so every time Jesus quotes from the Old Testament, it is from this Septuagint collection of Scriptures that would have contained the Deuterocanon

after the Christian religion started to spread he Pharisees blamed the popularity of Christianity on mixing of Greek philosophy in with Judaism, so the Jews got rid of the Septuagint and the books in it that were first written in Greek

the Deuterocanon was questioned by some of the Early Church
but so were other books
there was a debate about if The Revelation of John should be counted as Scripture (it was)
there was a debate about if The Epistle of Clement To The Corinthians should be counted as scripter (it was not)
I am just saying that the Bible did not float down from heaven in the hands of an angel and was handed to every single Christian community in the Ancient World
there were debates, arguments, disagreements, and just incomplete manuscripts

Rhamiel · Oct 19, 2014

sometimes I post verses from the Duterocononical books in the "post a bible verse" thread

shhhhhhhhhhh!
it's a secret!

Somber · Oct 20, 2014

I own the KJV Apocrypha, the book of Jubilees, the book of Jasher, and the book of Enoch. I have not read all of these books thoroughly yet, though what I have read from them I have found to be very interesting. I hear many different takes on these books, but I am trying to search it all out for myself. I am messianic and there seems to be some diversity from messianic to messianic believer, since some reject these writings while others I have met do hold these books in the same regards as scriptures. So I am seeking things out currently.

DaedraSun · Oct 20, 2014

Rhamiel said:
sometimes I post verses from the Duterocononical books in the "post a bible verse" thread

shhhhhhhhhhh!
it's a secret!

From now on, you are going to be watched...

:blink:

very carefully.

Gnarwhal · Oct 20, 2014

TX_CO_Matt said:
I've honestly never really understood why some evangelicals dislikes Catholicism so much.

Me neither, and I never will. Of course, the rhetoric here pales in comparison to what slips through the cracks in GT. :doh:

As far as the OP goes, I think the Deuterocanon is very compelling, and I think a reasonable inclusion into the text.

As far as the validity of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches doctrines, well, they are the very basis of the faith that we hold today. In fact, none of us would be allowed to post in the Christian-only sections of this forum without first affirming the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Something that was forged nearly six centuries before the Great Schism was even an idea. It's an exact expression of the Scriptures themselves, developed so that we can concisely say what Christianity is and is not when confronted with heresy and heterodoxy.

These churches steadfastness in the face of trial and tribulation is extraordinary, their faithfulness to the ancient faith warms my soul.

Saucy said:
I guess the simple answer is...it's not in my bible. I've wanted to read the book of Enoch, but mostly for pleasure. If it was an inspired word, there would be no confusion over it.

Enoch is a peculiar book, only because in this day and age it's generally associated with a very offbeat worldview. My ex-wifes mother was obsessed with that book, and used it as a central thesis for her eschatology. She also believed that reptilian people walk amongst us and FEMA was building prison camps within our borders. So you can see why I would certainly question the credibility of that one.

Really the only ones who affirm Enoch as scripture are the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Everyone else, including the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church see it as inauthentic.

r035198x · Oct 20, 2014

Rhamiel said:
lol HOW DID I MISS THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!

just as a side note, some interesting facts about the Deuterocannon

It's not quite as simple as that

Rhamiel said:
..it is believed that all of these books that are only in the Septuagint (the Deuterocanon) were first written in Greek by Jews living in different parts of the Ancient World

Actually some (Tobit, Sirach and Barut) were found to have been originally written in Hebrew.

Rhamiel said:
remember, that the New Testament was written in Greek, so every time Jesus quotes from the Old Testament, it is from this Septuagint collection of Scriptures that would have contained the Deuterocanon

Actually the strictest hermeneutics concludes that neither Jesus nor the apostles quoted from the Deuterocanonical writings.

Rhamiel said:
after the Christian religion started to spread he Pharisees blamed the popularity of Christianity on mixing of Greek philosophy in with Judaism, so the Jews got rid of the Septuagint and the books in it that were first written in Greek

Their exclusion was not based on them being originally Greek as some were actually originally in Hebrew, it was more because of
1.)the works of Josephus and
2.)the Jewish bible which excluded those that were available and didn't have the later ones that were not yet written when the Jewish bible was compiled (about the time of Ezra Nehemia).

Rhamiel · Oct 20, 2014

Actually the strictest hermeneutics concludes that neither Jesus nor the apostles quoted from the Deuterocanonical writings.

I did not say that Jesus quoted from the Deuterocanon
there are many books in the OT that are never directly quoted in the NT

I said that the Translation of the OT that is quoted by Jesus and the Apostles is the Septuagint, the same Greek language collection that has the Deuterocanon

r035198x · Oct 20, 2014

Rhamiel said:
I did not say that Jesus quoted from the Deuterocanon
there are many books in the OT that are never directly quoted in the NT

I said that the Translation of the OT that is quoted by Jesus and the Apostles is the Septuagint, the same Greek language collection that has the Deuterocanon

Yes, but saying that only might seem to support the Deuterocanon in a way that is diminished when it is also mentioned that despite those writings being in there Jesus and the disciples did not quote from them at all. The point I'm making being that it's not as simple as saying it was part of Septuagint. It's a statement which can be twisted to support either side. Anyhow the quotation argument is rarely used because Jesus and the apostles never quoted from Esther either.

Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Deuterocanon?

King of CF

aka Mayor McCheese

Lord Of The Forest

Guest

It is so ordered.

Junior Member

A Refraction of Light

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Lord Of The Forest

Guest

Junior Member

Lord Of The Forest

Guest

IS A HOMEBOY

Member of the Round Table

Member of the Round Table

꧁✿❁❀❁✿꧂

A Refraction of Light

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Junior Member

Member of the Round Table

Junior Member

Similar threads