Are extra books of the bible / apocrypha authentic?

[queenm04]

???

 

[Oblio]

Yes.

They are not extra. They were authenticated by the Church at the Council of Carthage in 397.

FYI - The term Apocrypha is incorrect and offensive to those that (as the Early Church did) hold them to be Holy Scripture.

 

[SumTinWong]

Yes.

They are not extra. They were authenticated by the church at the council of Cathage in 397.

FYI - The term Apocrypha is incorrect and offensive to those that (as the Early Church did) hold them to be Holy Scripture.

They are apocrypha, that is their nature as well as their name, and offensive to those of us who agree with the early church fathers that they are not inspired writings. Possibly useful for teaching, but not for doctrine. Sound Biblical doctrine anyway.

 

[Oblio]

They are apocrypha, that is their nature as well as their name, and offensive to those of us who agree with the early church fathers that they are not inspired writings.

They were never hidden (the meaning of the term apocrypha), they are properly called the Deutercanon and the Church (of which the Church Fathers are a part of) consider them to be the inspired word of God and has since the Bible was put together in her Council. It was an individual over 1000 years later that without authority or precedent in Scripture removed them from the canon.

 

[Oblio]

I would also like a cite that the Church (and not an individual) considered them uninspired. You will also note that there is no Bible after the council that defined it that predates the period of the reformation that excludes the books that Protestants question. Further, the OT canon that was adopted in modern times was taken rather than from the Church but from a group of Jews that sought to discredit not only Christianity, but Christ Himself.


Aside to the OP: You are talking about the OT books, Maccabees, Tobit et. al. ?? If you are talking about the Gospel of Thomas etc. that is a whole different story, with a very different conclusion.

 

[Julie]

They are apocrypha, that is their nature as well as their name, and offensive to those of us who agree with the early church fathers that they are not inspired writings. Possibly useful for teaching, but not for doctrine. Sound Biblical doctrine anyway.

Very true.

 

[queenm04]

Yes I mean the one with Maccabees, Tobit, baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Bel and the dragon, etc.

I purchased a bible, good news bible, 2 years ago, that has this books sitting between the Old testament and the New testament. I personally find wisdom of solomon inspiring. I wanted to know if its really authentic. In the book of Bel and the Dragon, Daniel is thrown in the pit of lions. During King Cyprus.Meaning that Daniel was thrown twice in the pit of lions, first during the time of King Nebuchadnezzar, and secondly during King Cyprus. I found an element of continuity there.

 

[artofwar]

They are apocrypha, that is their nature as well as their name, and offensive to those of us who agree with the early church fathers that they are not inspired writings. Possibly useful for teaching, but not for doctrine. Sound Biblical doctrine anyway.

agreed, also they are good for historical purposes only but not considered Biblical in that sense of what gives God the glory

 

[Oblio]

I personally find wisdom of solomon inspiring. I wanted to know if its really authentic.

Indeed it is. It is one of the books often read Liturgically during the Lenten period leading up to Pascha (Easter).

 

[SumTinWong]

the apocrypha

Even though the evidence pointed to the fact that the apocrypha was not Canon & even though the Christian Church in it's first four centuries rejected these writings as spurious they were in the end included. Augustine (354-430 AD) pushed for the apocrypha as Scripture over the objections of Jerome, and the RCC included it in the Latin Vulgate after Jerome's death. Jerome disagreed with Augustine about the apocrypha, and at first refused to even translate them into Latin. He later relented, when the Pope insisted, though he was adamant that the books were uninspired. Jerome, the who was the main translator of the Latin Vulgate, in 395 AD specified that any books which fell outside of the traditional Hebrew Bible should be considered apocryphal. He said the apocryphal books "are not in the Canon". Jerome wrote that the apocrypha was:".. for edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."
Once these writings were tacked into place next to the Holy Scriptures many people became to regard them as Scriptural by association. The Church had arguments here and there, about the apocrypha, up until the time of the Reformation. The RCC made it's views clear at the Council of Trent when it stated that all of the Latin Vulgate (to include the apocrypha) was equally Canon. The doctrine was re-affirmed at the Vatican Council of 1870.

The Jewish Old Testament was originally bound in a scroll of 24 books, and the Apocrypha was never bound with these books. The Jews divided the Bible as:
The Law (Torah) - 5 Books - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
The Prophets (Nebhiim) - 8 Books
The former prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings
The latter prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve
The Writings (Kethubhim) - 11 Books
Poetical books - Psalms, Job, Proverbs
Five rolls (Megilloth) - Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther
Historical books - Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

The apocrypha was never counted among this Holy Division. Josephus(not only excluded the apocrypha from the canon, but also considered these writings to be a satanic infiltration of the scriptures), the ancient Jewish historian, combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books, rather than the traditional 24. He writes: "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... only 22 books. which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be Divine;...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;...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 anything to them, or to make any change in them." (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).

Artaxerxes and Malachi both lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ. Josephus expressed the common belief of the Jews that no Scripture was written after the time of Artaxerxes. The Jewish Talmus also teaches that the Spirit of God departed from Israel insofar as Scriptural Writing is concerned after the time of Malachi. Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C .- A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament frequently, recognizing the Jewish threefold division, but never quoted from the apocrypha as inspired. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia did not even recognize the apocrypha. So was the apocrypha ever "removed" from the Canon? No, it was never in the Canon.

What about the New Testament Church? Did the early Church regard these writings as "God Breathed"? Actually, the early Church literally ignored the apocrypha. There are 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to any of the the apocryphal writings. Jesus(over 100 times) and His Apostles quoted extensively from the Old Testament, but never from the apocrypha.

Quick facts:
None Of the apocryphal books ever claim divine inspiration, though numerous canonised works claimed this of themselves: DEU 31.24-26; NEH 8.1-8; JOSH 1.8; JUD 3.4; DAN 12.2; 9.2; JER 36; JO 5.39; 10.35; 2 KI 22-23; NEH 8.5

All apocryphal authors(most of which are unknown by the way) never held the office or gift of a prophet

In the Book of Tobit, Tobit was supposed to be a youth (Tobit 1.3-5) in the days when the ten Northern Tribes of Israel revolted and seceded from the South (Judah). The book was supposed to have been written around the time of the Assyrian captivity, but if this was the case then Tobit would have been over 200 years old at the time of the writing. Yet Tobit 14:11 reports that he died when he was 158 years old. That's a pretty big error. But even if we discard this as "just a slip", Tobit 14:5 says that Ninevah was taken in battle by Nebuchadnezzar, something that just historically never happened. Tobit also endorses the use of fish liver to ward off demons. "Then the young man said to the angel, Brother Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gall of the fish? And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed..."

In 2 Maccabees 14:41-46 suicide seems to be justified:"Now as the multitude sought to rush into his house, and to break open the door, and to set fire to it, when he was ready to be taken, he struck himself with his sword: Choosing to die nobly rather than to fall into the hands of the wicked, and to suffer abuses unbecoming his noble birth. But whereas through haste he missed of giving a sure wound, and the crowd was breaking into the doors, he ran boldly to the wall, and manfully threw himself down to the crowd: But they quickly making room for his fall, he came upon the midst of the neck. And as he had yet breath in him, being inflamed in mind, he arose: and while his blood ran down with a great stream, and he was grievously wounded, he ran through the crowd: And standing upon a steep rock, when he was now almost without blood, grasping his bowels, with both hands he cast them upon the throng, calling upon the Lord of life and spirit, to restore these to him again: and so he departed this life."

2 Maccabees 12.41-45 teaches prayer for the dead as a means to bring them to salvation. This is totally contrary to Scripture, as illustrated by Jesus' story of the Rich man and Lazarus: Luke 16:24-31 "So he shouted, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me! Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and to cool off my tongue, because I am suffering in this fire.' But Abraham said, 'My child, remember that during your lifetime you received blessings, while Lazarus received hardships. But now he is being comforted here, while you suffer. Besides all this, a wide chasm has been fixed between us, so that those who want to cross from this side to you can't do so, nor can they cross from your side to us.' "The rich man said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him to my father's house- for I have five brothers-to warn them, so that they won't end up in this place of torture, too.' Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets. They should listen to them!' But the rich man replied, 'No, father Abraham! Yet if someone from the dead went to them, they would repent.' Then Abraham said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Ecclesiasticus(or Sirach) 3:30 Justifies Salvation By Giving Large Donations To God. It tries to tell us that we can buy our way into Heaven. This is totally contrary to God's Word (John 1:3; 2 Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11). "Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh an atonement for sins."

Wisdom Of Solomon 8:19-20 Teaches The pre-existence of the soul and reincarnation

The apocryphal Books were never excluded from the Old Testament Canon of Scripture because they were never a part of the Canon. The Jews never accepted any of the apocryphal Books as Scriptural. This exclusion weighed heavily against the Church accepting the apocrypha as Scriptural. Other than the obvious defects, the Jews rejected the apocrypha because none of the works were written by Prophets. All of the Old Testament Canon, with a few exceptions, was written by people who either had the Gift or Office of Prophet. Of the few that did not fit this category, like Esther, the book contained enough historical and Scriptural accuracy for the Jews to determine it to be Canonical. The apocrypha contained so many errors that the Jews rejected the books outright. In addition to this, unlike most Canonized Works (Deuteronomy 31.24-26; Nehemiah 8.1-8; Joshua 1.8; Judges 3.4; Daniel 12.2; 9.2; Jeremiah 36; 2 King 22-23; Nehemiah 8.5), the Apocrypha never claimed to be the Inspired Word of God. They were merely "recountings", never claiming Divine Inspiration for themselves(2 Maccabees 2: 24-32 & 2 Maccabees 15: 39-40 for instance)

Just FYI:
Most books in the apocrypha were composed around 200 BC.

The books are in the Septuagint(LXX), but not in the Hebrew version of the Bible.

Eastern Christian churches accept all these books as canonical;

Not all books from the Septuagint are accepted by the RCC as canonical. The Prayer of Manasseh, 3 and 4 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 are not considered to be canonical, and are not included in the canon. Some Protestants include these books in the apocrypha. In the Vulgate, these books are found in an Appendix.

Among the Oriental Orthodox, the Apocrypha are accepted, and with the Ethiopian Orthodox there are additional books such as Jubilees, Enoch, and the Rest of the Words of Baruch. Enoch was accepted as scripture because the book of Jude in the New Testament quotes it as scripture

While Jews reject the apocrypha as having religious value in and of itself, at various times some in the Jewish community have drawn from it as a legitimate part of Jewish literary creativity; elements of the apocrypha have even been used as the basis for two important parts of the Jewish liturgy. In the Mahzor (High Holy day prayer book), a medieval Jewish poet used Ben Sira as the basis for a beautiful poem, Ke'Ohel HaNimtah. This is a closing piyut in the Seder Avodah section, in the Yom Kipur Musaf. It begins: "How glorious indeed was the High Priest, when he safely left the Holy of Holies. Like the clearest canopy of Heaven was the dazzling countenance of the priest". The Conservative Mahzor replaces the medieval piyut with the relevant section from Ben Sira, which is more direct. The apocrypha has even formed the basis of the most important of all Jewish prayers, the Amidah (the Shemonah Esrah). Ben Sira provides the vocabulary and framework for many of the Amidah's blessings, which were instituted by the men of the Great Assembly.

The Protestants:
John Calvin wrote, "I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those [apocryphal] books", though he objected to "placing the apocrypha in the same rank with inspired Scripture" (Antidote to the Council of Trent, pp. 67,68).
Martin Luther, placed the apocrypha in an appendix to the Old Testament in his German Bible. He described them as "Books which are not to be held equal to Holy Scripture, but are useful and good to read."
Wycliffs' Bible (14th century) included the Apocrypha, but in it's preface made it clear that it accepted Jerome's judgement, not Augustine's.
The Church of England (1562) explicitly denied the apocrypha as Canon, though admitted that the books could be read for their "didactic worth" (Article IV).
The King James Bible of 1611 put the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments, but omitted it from all versions from 1630 and on.
The Westminister Confession of the Presbyterians decreed the apocrypha to be no part of the Scripture.
The British and Foreign Bible Society of 1827 resolved never to print or circulate Bibles that contained the apocrypha.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Lollard wrote:

Even though the evidence pointed to the fact that the apocrypha was not Canon & even though the Christian Church in it's first four centuries rejected these writings as spurious they were in the end included

Let us see that evidence. Being that the story of the 7 brothers that Our Lord answers in the Gospels comes from the book of Tobit. They have always been Scripture in the Church, it was beginning with Luther that some do not think so.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Lotar]

The NT also references the Talmud, and we certainly don't include that in our canon.

Questioning of the Apocrypha did not start with Luther by any means.

 

[Oblio]

Christian Church in it's first four centuries rejected these writings as spurious they were in the end included.

No, the Church did not reject it, certain members did. We are not Roman Catholic and the viewpoint of one Church Father does not determine the mind of the Church. None the less, as you note, in the end they were determined by The Church to be Holy Scripture.

 

[Oblio]

Questioning of the Apocrypha did not start with Luther by any means.

No, but the rejection of it did. Questioning a book does not make it any less inspired, if that were the case we would not have Revelation, James, several of St. John the Theologian's Epistles etc.

 

[Lotar]

No, but the rejection of it did. Questioning a book does not make it any less inspired, if that were the case we would not have Revelation, James, several of St. John the Theologian's Epistles etc.

Rejection didn't start with him either
It's not like he didn't take the time to put them in his translation.

I would say that questioning does make them less inspired.

 

[Oblio]

Rejection didn't start with him either

Show us the first Bible that rejected them.

 

[Lotar]

Show us the first Bible that rejected them.

If you mean, not included, then that would be the Puritan version.

 

[Oblio]

If you mean, not included, then that would be the Puritan version.

The guys on the Oatmeal box ??
The ones that 'evolved' into Shakers ??

 

[Lotar]

Yep.

The 66 book version is pretty much an American Protestant thing.

The German translation LCMS used to put out always included the Apocrypha.

 

[Lynn73]

They are apocrypha, that is their nature as well as their name, and offensive to those of us who agree with the early church fathers that they are not inspired writings. Possibly useful for teaching, but not for doctrine. Sound Biblical doctrine anyway.

I agree.