• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.
May 11, 2004
4,273
123
Fortress Kedar
✟28,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Which book, if any, of the Apocrypha, could be considered as scripture? Not to be confused with the Apocrypha, are there any of the psuedo-Apocrypha which may also be given a value? (see the sacred-texts site) After a rough study, most of the Apocrypha seem Biblically based, but most of the psuedo-Apocrypha seem obviously fake. Please assist!

(Also, is it permissible to speak in Latin here, or must I translate to English?)
 

Oblio

Creed or Chaos
Jun 24, 2003
22,324
865
65
Georgia - USA
Visit site
✟27,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you are speaking of what Protestants call the OT Apocrypha, or what is properly termed as the Deuterocanon (Wisdom, Sirrach, Maccabees et. al.), then your answer is that ALL of them are considered Scripture. They were edited out of the Bible in recent history by some Christians, but have always been part of the Bible from its beginning in the late 4th century AD. You will not find Bibles that pre-date the reformation without those books included.
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2004
4,273
123
Fortress Kedar
✟28,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I know they were part of older Bibles, but I think I should rephrase it a little. Was the Apocrypha considered scripture in Jesus' day by the Jews? Was it in their "Bible"? Was it ever read from in that time (Early 1st Century)?
 
Upvote 0

christian-only

defender of the rebirth
Mar 20, 2004
686
35
✟1,017.00
Faith
Christian
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-93.htm Athanasius refers to what we now call Apocrypha as books not included in the Canon but merely read, and to what we call pseudo-apocrypha as apochryphal. Below is the last four paragraphs from the link:

 
Upvote 0

Oblio

Creed or Chaos
Jun 24, 2003
22,324
865
65
Georgia - USA
Visit site
✟27,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
I know they were part of older Bibles, but I think I should rephrase it a little. Was the Apocrypha considered scripture in Jesus' day by the Jews? Was it in their "Bible"? Was it ever read from in that time (Early 1st Century)?

Christ and The Apostles considered the Deuterocanon Scripture and quoted most often from the Septuagint (LXX) which included it. There was a heretical sect of Jews, who sought to discredit Christianity, that exluded the Deuterocanon in AD 70, but the Christians did not follow their canon, but rather the LXX.
 
Upvote 0

Oblio

Creed or Chaos
Jun 24, 2003
22,324
865
65
Georgia - USA
Visit site
✟27,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Athanasius refers to what we now call Apocrypha as books not included in the Canon but merely read, and to what we call pseudo-apocrypha as apochryphal. Below is the last four paragraphs from the link:

It is important to remember that St. Athanasius, as important as he was, is fallible and does not, nor does any other man determine the canon of Holy Scripture. The canon was determined by Holy Council, led by the Holy Spirit, and included the Deuterocanon in this canon. It is folly to put trust in a man, whether he be Athanasius or Luther, in the determination of what books make up tha canon of Holy Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

christian-only

defender of the rebirth
Mar 20, 2004
686
35
✟1,017.00
Faith
Christian
Well, by Deuterocanon they meant "a canon of books that are read but not actually in the real canon" which agrees exactly with what Athanasius said. And even if that wasn't the case, which I'm quite sure it is, I think I'd rather stick with what Athanasius said than with whatever council you refer to, since it is obvious that Tobit is just a Jewish commedy act. An angel lying to a man and extorting camels from him - I mean, come on. IF this is a book "merely read" and "not in the Canon" then OK, but if it's in the Canon then there's a big problem here!
 
Upvote 0

christian-only

defender of the rebirth
Mar 20, 2004
686
35
✟1,017.00
Faith
Christian
Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
Where is the camel thing from?

In the book of Tobit an angel takes a trip with Tobit and makes up a name for himself, claiming to be Tobit's kinsman. At one point in the story, Tobit or one of his family members offers the angel some camels thinking that he is a relative and he accepts them, under false pretenses obviously since he isn't Tobit's relative and isn't even a man. There's no indication that he ever gave them back. This is what I remember anyway.
 
Upvote 0
May 7, 2004
55
6
✟208.00
Faith
Catholic
Hey all and God bless!

I thought it might help if I were to add that - although the Early Church Fathers and Popes throughout the ages before the final canonical decision at the Council of Trent have disagreed, which must be conceded at the outset - the main reason the deuterocanon was thrown out of Bibles was because Martin Luther found that they disagreed with his theological views. At least, 2 Maccabees 12:45ff, prayer for the dead is advocated, which was something Luther didn't like, and so he decided to remove it from his own (subjectively-determined) canon of Scriptures. He did the same with not only the other 6 deuterocanonicals, but also the Epistle of James, saying "Therefore St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw...for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it." Also, Revelation and I'm not sure how many other NT books were thrown out by Luther.

I suggest, too, that some of the patristic quotes in regard to the so-called Apocrypha be investigated, which can be found here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp.

I hope this helps some,
In Christ,
Sheridan
 
Upvote 0

Oblio

Creed or Chaos
Jun 24, 2003
22,324
865
65
Georgia - USA
Visit site
✟27,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Again, the problem is that the Deutercanon was accepted by all Christians for 1500 years (and canonized for the latter 1000 years of that) before it was 'removed' by a man with no authority and an agenda for doing so. Why would anyone put their trust in a man to determine that which was inspired, infallible, and the very word of God ??
 
Upvote 0
May 7, 2004
55
6
✟208.00
Faith
Catholic
Howdy, again!
I'm glad to see God uses our meager efforts and multiplies them as He did the loaves and fish (see Jn. 6:1-14)!

The Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition has all three, Bizzlebin.

And you'd probably be surprised to find that most early Protestant versions - the earliest KJV, especially - had the deuterocanon. I apologize if I gave not a precise enough impression, but Luther actually put the deuterocanon in an unnumbered-paged appendix towards the back of his Bibles, and didn't actually get rid of them totally. That was done for good by the English Foreign Bible Society in about the mid-late 19th century or so.

Thanks be to Christ our God for all of His truth,
Sheridan
 
Upvote 0

christian-only

defender of the rebirth
Mar 20, 2004
686
35
✟1,017.00
Faith
Christian
Captain John Sheridan said:
the main reason the deuterocanon was thrown out of Bibles was because Martin Luther found that they disagreed with his theological views. At least, 2 Maccabees 12:45ff, prayer for the dead is advocated, which was something Luther didn't like

This is false, as far as the English Bible is concerned. After Luther, in 1611, the Apocrypha was still being printed in the King James version. It was the Puritan who eventually took it out. BTW, The Apocrypha is not rejected by all Protestants, but many believe that it is profitable to read for historical purposes, but that no doctrine is established nor should be established by it. This was the position of the Church of England which is why it was included in the KJV but separated from actual Scripture.

Now, concerning 2nd Maccabees 12:45, which says "And also in that he perceived that there was great favour layed up for those that died godly. (It was an holy, and good thought) wherupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin." Firstly, it is merely a narrative. Judas hung himself - does that make it right? Secondly, it directly contradicts 1 John 5:16 "There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." If a man commit a sin that results in his physical death, we are not to pray about it.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.