• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical

Cajun Huguenot

Cajun's for Christ
Aug 18, 2004
3,055
293
65
Cajun Country
Visit site
✟4,779.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I have been reading stuff on the “canon” of Scripture and I’ve found this to be a fascinating subject. I’ve been surprised about a number of things that I have learned will looking into this subject.

The book that we call the Old Testament is the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus, and the Apostles who followed him, believed in their day that there was a definitive, authoritative body of writings that existed then and they refer to them often. They call these writings by titles like the Law and the prophets, the Law of Moses, the law the prophets and the psalms, and sometimes they refer to them as “the Law” and at other times they referred to them as “the Scriptures.” Jesus also countered His opponents by referring to those same Scriptures by saying “It is written.”

Jesus, His disciples and the other Jews all understood the writings mentioned above to be the authoritative Word of God. These very same Jewish Scriptures became the “Scriptures” and the Bible of the early church. (It took a while before the New Testament was written and compiled so this was the only Bible possessed by the church for a time.)

The Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew and some in Aramaic. By the time of Christ the common language of the Palestinian Jew’s was Aramaic and not Hebrew. It is also important to remember that in that day there were countless Jews scattered throughout the Middle East. They had been deported from Israel and Judah hundreds of years before by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Many of them settled in far off lands and never returned to the land of Israel. They were what became know as the Diaspora.

By New Testament times many of the Diaspora Jews were Greek speaking. In Alexandria, Egypt there was a large Greek speaking Jewish population and sometime during the middle of the third century BC they began translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This translation became know as the Septuagint (or LXX), so by Jesus’ day the Scriptures existed in both Hebrew and Greek.

The early Jewish disciple of Jesus brought the Gospel of Christ to a mostly Greek speaking Gentile world. Greek was the common Language of that day, and so it is natural that the Gentile Christians turned to the Scriptures they could read (and it was not Hebrew). The Bible of the early Church was the Septuagint (i.e. Greek) translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

By the time of the early Church there were other writings included in Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Protestants call these additional writings the Apocrypha and the Roman Catholics call refer to most of them as the Deuterocanonical (second canon) books. There have been differences of opinion about the canonicity of these writings since the earliest days of the Church, and those differences continue even today.

Josephus (37-100 AD) in defending the Jewish faith in the late first century wrote this about the Hebrew Scriptures:
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.

In book I of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (series 2) we read the following note on Josephus’s list:
…Josephus is the earliest writer to give us a summary of the books of the Old Testament; and he evidently gives not merely his own private opinion but the commonly accepted canon of his day. He does not name the separate books, but he tells us that they were twenty-two in number (the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet), and gives us the three divisions, so that we are able to ascertain his canon in detail. It was doubtless as follows:-
1-5. Books of Moses.
6. Joshua.
7. Judges and Ruth.
8. Samuel.
9. Kings.
10. Chronicles.
11. Ezra and Nehemiah.
12. Esther.
13. Isaiah.
14. Jeremiah and Lamentations.
15. Ezekiel.
16. Daniel.
17. Twelve Minor Prophets.
18. Job.
19. Psalms.
20. Proverbs.
21. Ecclesiastes.
22. Song of Songs.

The twenty-two books mentioned by Josephus correspond to the thirty-nine books of our Old Testament. The Jewish Scriptures are arranged differently than our Old Testament. Books, such as I and II Kings, are counted as one book, though we count them as two, and this is true in a number of cases. We number the Minor Prophets separately, but they are all counted as one book in the Jewish version. (Note: See F.F. Bruce’s The Canon of Scripture for a detailed explanation of how this is.)

The Deutrocanonical/Apocrypha books were disputed in the early Church. Those Christians more closely associated with Palestine tended to have access to the Hebrew Scriptures and so they tended to reject the extra books found in the Septuagint, while the Christians farther away, who were unfamiliar with Palestinian Judaism, were more likely to accept the books as part of the canon.

The earliest known Christian list of Old Testament books is found in Eusebius’ Church history. He quotes a letter written by Melito, bishop of Sardis, in 170 AD. Melito wrote, “Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order…”

The Catholic Encyclopaedia states that St. Melito’s list “consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther.” The protocanonicals (i.e. first canon) are the books of the Old Testament as found in the Protestant Bible. We read this about Melito’s list in book I of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (series 2) “His list really differs from Josephus' only in omitting the Book of Esther. This omission may be accidental, though it is omitted by Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen. He makes no mention of Nehemiah, but that is doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case of Josephus' canon. His canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and hence we should expect it to be the same as that of Josephus, which makes it more probable that the omission of Esther was only accidental.”

Rufinus (345-410) a contemporary of St. Jerome gives us a list of Old Testament books in his commentary on the Creed. He writes “…it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of Christ

Rufinus then gives us a list of The Old Testament books. Here is his list “Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one hook; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.”

Rufinus’ list of the Old Testament is that which is found in the Protestant Bible, but he is not finished. He nexts list the books of the new Testament and then says “But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not 'Canonical' but 'Ecclesiastical:' that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways,150 or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.”

Rufinus admits that the church has inherited other books that he says are not part of the canon, and therefore not to be used for determining matters of doctrine. These books, our Apocrypha/deuterocanonical books, he says are useful for edifying believers, but they were not to be used to determine doctrinal disputes.

St. Jerome was a great linguist of his day. He knew Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He is also the man who gave us the Vulgate (Latin) translation of the Bible, which was the Bible of the Western Church for over a thousand years. Jerome agreed with Rufinus.

In his Preface to the books of Samuel and Kings, Jerome lists the books of the Old Testament, after which he says “This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a 'helmeted' introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which finally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so…”

St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo was the younger contemporary of Rufinus and Jerome. He is also a hero of the Lutheran and Reformed Protestant Churches, but on the question at in this essay, he took the opposite position of Rufinus and Jerome. Augustine led two local church councils in North Africa where the Apocryphal books were affirmed as canon.

Continued...
 

Cajun Huguenot

Cajun's for Christ
Aug 18, 2004
3,055
293
65
Cajun Country
Visit site
✟4,779.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
There were great Christian men on both sides of this issue as the Roman World collapsed in the West. As the ancient church moved into the medieval world, Jerome’s position, not Augustine’s, was the view held by most of the church.

It is interesting that even after the Reformation began a number of important, scholarly Roman Catholics maintained the position of men like Melito, Rufinus and Jerome. One such man is Cardinal Ximenes (1436–1517), bishop of Toledo, Spain. He agreed with Jerome on the Apocrypha.

The same is true of Cardinal Cajetan. Cajetan is famous for his opposition to Martin Luther at Augsburg, but on this issue Luther and Cajetan both followed Jerome’s lead. The Cardinal wrote the following words to his commentary on the Old Testament, which was published in 1532. He said “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

It is clear the Cardinal agrees with Jerome and he is also trying to erase the differences that exist on this issue between Jerome and Augustine. But the point I want to make is that this leader of the Roman Catholic response to the Lutheran movement did not believe that the writings which we, along with Jerome, refer to as apocrypha were not to be used to decide matters of doctrine.

It is at the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church breaks with her 1500 year position and officially adopts these extra books, and declares them to be canon or deutro-canonical (a second canon). Rome at that time anathamatised all who differed with here on this subject. At the fourth session of the Council of Trent we find, after a list of the proto/dueterocononical books the following "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books 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; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema." This was, I believe, an over reaction by Rome to the Reformation.

It will surprise many Protestants to learn that the early Protestant translations of the Bible included the Apocrypha. They were in the Lutheran Bible, as well as the Reformed/Puritan Geneva Bible (English) and even the early King James Bibles. The Apocrypha has been removed from Protestant Bibles because of the Protestant over reaction to the Catholic position at the Council of Trent. While Protestants have not officially anathamatised Catholics over this issue, many (if not most) have done so practically.

I believe that both groups (protestants and Catholics) have fallen into ditches on opposite sides of the road because to of their over reactions to one another on this issue.

Coram Deo,
Kenith
 
Upvote 0

Knee V

It's phonetic.
Sep 17, 2003
8,417
1,741
43
South Bend, IN
✟115,823.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A little something to keep in mind through all of this is that, even though the East had been far removed from the West for many centuries, even before 1054ad, we also use the deutero's in our canon.

And BOTH sides can quote people who favored their position on the status of the deuterocanonicals. But this is not my place to do that here. I'll just say that although I was a very ardent reformed protestant in my day, I found the evidence in favor of the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals much more convincing, both logically and historically.

Y'all take care.
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,049
1,801
60
New England
✟616,444.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
knee-v said:
A little something to keep in mind through all of this is that, even though the East had been far removed from the West for many centuries, even before 1054ad, we also use the deutero's in our canon.

And BOTH sides can quote people who favored their position on the status of the deuterocanonicals. But this is not my place to do that here. I'll just say that although I was a very ardent reformed protestant in my day, I found the evidence in favor of the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals much more convincing, both logically and historically.

Y'all take care.

Good Day, Knee

What historical evidence did you look at?

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.


Peace to u,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,049
1,801
60
New England
✟616,444.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good day,

From The Council of Laodicea: 364 AD.
Canon 60.(a)
It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings;(b) 10. Third and Fourth Kings;(c) 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra;(d) 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel.



Peace to u,

Bill



 
Upvote 0

Rising_Suns

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'
Jul 14, 2002
10,836
793
45
Saint Louis, MO
✟31,835.00
Faith
Catholic
It is at the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church breaks with her 1500 year position and officially adopts these extra books, and declares them to be canon or deutro-canonical (a second canon).

I don't mean to intrude, but this point is a little misleading. The council of Trent was reactionary, in that it was called to a perceived threat. Although Trent infallibly defined the canon of Scripture, it merely reaffirmed the same canon of Scripture that was historically laid out by the Church in the 4th century. Two regional councils; both Carthage and Hippo affirmed the canon of Scripture (393 A.D. and 397 A.D. I believe), and this canon (Septuagint) became the accepted canon of Scipture by the Church throughout the centuries.

Also, the source you get this information from seems to want to insist that the canon was in wide dispute throughout the centuries. Although it was indeed in disupte, those who disputed the Septuagint were smaller pockets, in the minority; the majority of fathers agreed on the canon of Scripture.

Blessings,

-Davide
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
45
Southern California
✟34,644.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Cajun Huguenot ,

Modern scholars now believe that there were two Hebrew canons; the one from which the Septuigent was translated, and the one the Jews have based theirs upon. They also believe that the Septuigent was translated from an older and has been preserved more faithfully, and the Jewish version was chosen because of it's lack of the more specific messianic prophecies. As it states in the Oxford intro to the Duetrocanon, since the recent discovery of ancient biblical documents, scholars have begun to question the assumption that the Hebrew canon is more accurate because it is in Hebrew.
 
Upvote 0

Cajun Huguenot

Cajun's for Christ
Aug 18, 2004
3,055
293
65
Cajun Country
Visit site
✟4,779.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Lotar,

Scholars can and do speculate on many matters. Do you have some names of books or websites that I can go to, to check out this theory? I would like to check it out.

Above I mention St. Melito’s list. St. Athanasius in his Festal Letter number XXXIX written in 367 AD says this about the Old Testament Canon:

In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: `Forasmuch as some have taken in hand ,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.


St. Athanasius’ list of the Old Testament canon is the same as the Protestant canon except he leaves out Esther and includes Baruch. His list is the same as St. Melito’s list but for the addition of Baruch.


St. Jerome and Rufinus also agree with the Protestant Canon and Rufinus adds that “…it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of Christ.”


I readily grant that there were other views than those mention. St Augustine’s position on the canon was that the Septuagint was God inspired including the disputed books. But the facts are that the EarlyChurch had differing views on what was canon and what was apocryphal.


As to the Councils Of Hippo and Carthage, If I am not mistaken Trent’s Deuterocanonical books don’t match those of Hippo and Carthage. Trent dropped some of those that St. Augustine and company had approved then.

Coram Deo,
Kenith
 
Upvote 0

rowena

Dance Dance French Revolution
Feb 22, 2005
781
86
42
Hazelwood, Mo
Visit site
✟23,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
BBAS 64 said:
Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.
BBAS 64, this comes from a Catholic source and Catholics tend to have a different idea of what the Apocrypha are. Protestants usually use it to mean all the "biblical" books that arn't included in their canon, while Catholics use Apocrypha to mean all the "biblical" books that arn't in either canon, for example The Gospel of Mary. The books that we have an you don't are typically refered to as the Deuterocanonical. I know the different vocabulary confused the heck out of me at first.
 
Upvote 0

Cajun Huguenot

Cajun's for Christ
Aug 18, 2004
3,055
293
65
Cajun Country
Visit site
✟4,779.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Rowena,

You make a good point. Books that the Roman Catholic Church believes to be Scripture it calls deuterocanonical and does not refer to the books as apocrypha, though that is the title Protestants give to them.

When a Catholic refers to the Apocrypha he is speaking of additional writings that both Catholics and Protestants reject. Don't forget about the pseudopygrapha either.

Coram Deo,
Kenith
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,049
1,801
60
New England
✟616,444.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
rowena said:
BBAS 64, this comes from a Catholic source and Catholics tend to have a different idea of what the Apocrypha are. Protestants usually use it to mean all the "biblical" books that arn't included in their canon, while Catholics use Apocrypha to mean all the "biblical" books that arn't in either canon, for example The Gospel of Mary. The books that we have an you don't are typically refered to as the Deuterocanonical. I know the different vocabulary confused the heck out of me at first.

Good Day, Rowena

The Catholic source is using the historical term used by Jerome, that is why they point to Jerome. The term deuterocanonical is some what newer from an historical point of view.

Peace to u,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
43
California
✟26,116.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Rising_Suns said:
I don't mean to intrude, but this point is a little misleading. The council of Trent was reactionary, in that it was called to a perceived threat. Although Trent infallibly defined the canon of Scripture, it merely reaffirmed the same canon of Scripture that was historically laid out by the Church in the 4th century. Two regional councils; both Carthage and Hippo affirmed the canon of Scripture (393 A.D. and 397 A.D. I believe), and this canon (Septuagint) became the accepted canon of Scipture by the Church throughout the centuries.

Also, the source you get this information from seems to want to insist that the canon was in wide dispute throughout the centuries. Although it was indeed in disupte, those who disputed the Septuagint were smaller pockets, in the minority; the majority of fathers agreed on the canon of Scripture.

Blessings,

-Davide
Hi Davide,

A couple key distinctions. First, these councils were local, not œcumenical, therefore their veracity in terms of Church doctrine is fallible. Second, they were inconsistent both with earlier church fathers and most contemporaries. Moreover, the canons put forth by these councils were later invalidated by the Œcumenical Council of Trent, as Kenith has pointed out.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0