Are extra books of the bible / apocrypha authentic?

[Patristic]

Of course you would say that, you are on the exact other side of the argument. Go ahead and dismiss whatever else anyone has said here, it doesn't help your position on my eyes, and doesn't make me want to continue this conversation with you.

So if the one Father who has the lowest view of the deuterocanonical books still calls them Scripture and quotes from them, that shouldn't be something I should take into account? Furthermore, please show me where I dismissed what everyone else said. I wasn't responding to anyone's posts, just offering my opinion; Notice the first 3 words of my first post, In my opinion.

 

[Crazy Liz]

You are correct those are good places to start, and I will take a look at them.

What seems to be sticking in my craw about this whole thing is the fact that Paul thought of himself and even "bragged" about being a "super Jew". That is vulgar terminology I realize but bear with me. Paul said that if there was going to be anyone to brag about being a Jew or having all the right pegs in the right slots, wouldn't this Jew of Jews used the Hebrew Bible?

Oh, now I see what you're getting at.

I absolutely think Paul used the Hebrew Bible, and I think the scripture you cite supports it. Paul also said, "I become all things to all people, so that I may by all means save some." I think this supports the idea that he ALSO used the LXX.

Paul certainly wasn't a "Hebrew-only" or "Septuagint-only" Jew like some Christians today would call themselves KJV-only. Most of us refer to multiple translations, and when necessary and if we are able, to Greek and Hebrew, as well. I think Paul was similarly eclectic.

It is clear that the author or final compiler of Matthew's gospel was similarly eclectic.

[quopte]I am a sure a Jew of his status would have had ample opportunities to view texts in all languages so I am not ruling out the LXX by any means, but I am I guess just throwing this in there for conversation sake. Either way do we know that the LXX of today is the LXX of Pauls time? [/quote]

We know where NT quotations match the LXX and where they don't. I don't think you want to go too far down the rabbit trail of whether today's LXX matches that of Paul's time. If you can accept an eclectic text of the Greek NT, you should also be able to accept an eclectic text of the LXX. As far as I know, the text of the LXX we have today has not changed any more from the first century than the NT has. IOW, there may be some variation among manuscripts, but we can be pretty confident that scripture has been preserved.

Also, I think I remember seeing at least one occasion, that Paul wasn't actually writing one of the letters that someone else (Romans 16:22 "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.") wrote them, as a scribe or a secretary. Perhaps it wasn't Paul speaking from the LXX but it was the interpreter or writer putting it into words they would understand better. Obviously this is all conjecture, but it does give some room for thought.

There is a lot of conjecture about how much input the amanuenses (scribes or secretaries) had into the final text of various Pauline letters. Several of them seem to indicate that Paul and the person with the pen were in agreement about everything written there.

While it seems that the gospel of Mark was written by an interpreter (and ancient texts also indicate that Mark was Peter's interpreter, and that he wrote down Peter's recollections shortly after Peter's death) Paul was certainly very literate in both Greek and Hebrew, and had no need to dictate in Hebrew to a scribe who would translate into Greek.

 

[KennySe]

Yes I mean the one with Maccabees, Tobit, baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Bel and the dragon, etc.[/font]
there.

Oblio gave you the correct answer in post #2, which is directly after your OP.

Yes.

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

What you would then ask those who disagree with Oblio and me, is for them to provide you with:
* A list of the Bible Canon, from Genesis through Revelation (Apocalypse of John) that does NOT include those 7 books. Again, the list that has all 66 books listed but not those 7.
*The name of the complete Christian Bible, from Genesis through Revelation
(Apocalypse of John) that does NOT include those 7 books. Again, the list that has all 66 books listed but not those 7.

Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

*

Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

*
Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

*

Pope Innocent I

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

*
http://catholicoutlook.com/objapoc1.html

Council of Florence

“[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].” (February 5, 1442)

​

 

[Patristic]

Another factor that must be taken into account is how did the earliest Christians appraise these books and what weight were they given? To find the answer to this question it is absolutely imperative to look at the earliest Christian documents outside of the New Testament. The Didache, dated from the late 1st century to the early 2nd century contains quotes or direct references to several deuterocanonical books including Tobit, Sirach, and Wisdom. The title Didache comes from the Greek verb didaskw, which simply translates to teach. Thus, this document was not an inspirational piece of writing, but one that was used for the purpose of instruction and it quotes from the deuterocanonical Scriptures for this express purpose.

Second, the epistle of of Clement to the Corinthian Church contains a reference to the book of wisdom. So once again we have a first century Christian teacher quoting from a deuterocanonical book along with the other Scriptures in an instructive letter. I find it odd that the spiritual children of the Apostles would make such a crucial mistake in quoting from these books when they should have been taught that they were not Scripture, but only valuable for historical and inspirational insight.

 

[SumTinWong]

So if the one Father who has the lowest view of the deuterocanonical books still calls them Scripture and quotes from them, that shouldn't be something I should take into account? Furthermore, please show me where I dismissed what everyone else said. I wasn't responding to anyone's posts, just offering my opinion; Notice the first 3 words of my first post, In my opinion.

Sorry but this conversation is blurring in my brain at this point. I guess my answer would be to go back and read what I posted so I am not forced to repost my position over and over again. Your questions have already been answered by me in one way or another, in the last 15 pages or so.

My view is not just based just on Jerome, but it is based on the Jews themselves, Jesus, the Apostles, no references in the NT, among other reasons.

 

[KennySe]

Show us the first Bible that rejected them.

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

The Geneva Bible (Puritan) Bible was published on June 10, 1557.

Your implication is that every Bible before that had too many books in it, some uninspired.

Why did the Lord God not have this corrected until 1557?

 

[Patristic]

Sorry but this conversation is blurring in my brain at this point. I guess my answer would be to go back and read what I posted so I am not forced to repost my position over and over again. Your questions have already been answered by me in one way or another, in the last 15 pages or so.

My view is not just based just on Jerome, but it is based on the Jews themselves, Jesus, the Apostles, no references in the NT, among other reasons.

I know, I read your post and I offered all of my responses to your arguments in the Saints thread. You offered nothing new or substantial in your posts here that differed from the arguments there. I think you should be fair when you say your canon is based on the Jews decision by stating you mean Palestinian Rabbis when you say Jews. Your arguments that say Jesus and the Apostles support your conception of the canon is nothing more than an argument from silence.

 

[Lotar]

I may be wrong, but I believe it was much later than 1557 that the books were removed.


I don't think I would say the Bible itself is inspired, but that it contains inspired books. If you added The DaVinci Code to the your Bible, it would make Romans no less inspired.

Plus, I'm not saying that the Apocyphal books are not inspired, I am merely stating that there is controversy surounding them. IMNSHO, some books are more authoritative than others.

 

[SumTinWong]

Oh, now I see what you're getting at.

I absolutely think Paul used the Hebrew Bible, and I think the scripture you cite supports it. Paul also said, "I become all things to all people, so that I may by all means save some." I think this supports the idea that he ALSO used the LXX.

Absolutly. I couldn't agree more.

Paul certainly wasn't a "Hebrew-only" or "Septuagint-only" Jew like some Christians today would call themselves KJV-only. Most of us refer to multiple translations, and when necessary and if we are able, to Greek and Hebrew, as well. I think Paul was similarly eclectic.

Which I think is one of Pauls charms. He could have been an itellectual snob and could have very well benn stuck in his roots. What amazes me is that this super pharasee, turned out to be liberal on the scale between James and Peter in his theology.

It is clear that the author or final compiler of Matthew's gospel was similarly eclectic.

Yeah tradition says Matthew was a doctor I think right? Being a doctor he could havebeen fluent in many languages.

We know where NT quotations match the LXX and where they don't. I don't think you want to go too far down the rabbit trail of whether today's LXX matches that of Paul's time. If you can accept an eclectic text of the Greek NT, you should also be able to accept an eclectic text of the LXX. As far as I know, the text of the LXX we have today has not changed any more from the first century than the NT has. IOW, there may be some variation among manuscripts, but we can be pretty confident that scripture has been preserved.

No I agree, I think that when one looks at the veracity of one document one has to do the same with all. As far as the quotes matching the LXX and not, I would have to defer to your knowledge on that. I still have it stuck in my head perhaps a translator could have used poetic license in some of these translations over the years.

There is a lot of conjecture about how much input the amanuenses (scribes or secretaries) had into the final text of various Pauline letters. Several of them seem to indicate that Paul and the person with the pen were in agreement about everything written there.

One thing we also have to rmember is that these letters were copied over and over again and passed around to the various churches. There very well could be an honest error here or there based on human nature.

While it seems that the gospel of Mark was written by an interpreter (and ancient texts also indicate that Mark was Peter's interpreter, and that he wrote down Peter's recollections shortly after Peter's death) Paul was certainly very literate in both Greek and Hebrew, and had no need to dictate in Hebrew to a scribe who would translate into Greek.

Gotcha. You are correct, my mistake.

 

[KennySe]

Matthew was a tax collector.

Luke was the physician.

 

[SumTinWong]

I think you should be fair when you say your canon is based on the Jews decision by stating you mean Palestinian Rabbis when you say Jews. Your arguments that say Jesus and the Apostles support your conception of the canon is nothing more than an argument from silence.

Okay let's be fair. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the Roman province of Judea. Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth in the Roman province of Galilee. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ was a Jew born in Judea of Galilean resident parents under Roman civil authority. What territory was this? That is right, Jesus was a Palestine Jew.

The silence of the Apostles on these documents, not too mention Jesus silence on them is overwhelming. With all of the qoutes from the majority of the OT, anone from the apocrypha, my mind is made up. I base most of my belief that they are spurious on that.

 

[SumTinWong]

Matthew was a tax collector.

Luke was the physician.

You are right, my bad. I told you my brain is mush...

 

[eightfoot514]

The silence of the Apostles on these documents, not too mention Jesus silence on them is overwhelming. With all of the qoutes from the majority of the OT, anone from the apocrypha, my mind is made up. I base most of my belief that they are spurious on that.

Well, are you willing to also discard the following books?

Esther
Nehemiah
Song of Songs
Ecclesiastes
Ruth

None of these books are quoted in the New Testament. However, books that none of us regard as inspired, such as the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are referred to in the book of Jude.

Eric

 

[queenm04]

Oblio gave you the correct answer in post #2, which is directly after your OP. What you would then ask those who disagree with Oblio and me, is for them to provide you with: * A list of the Bible Canon, from Genesis through Revelation (Apocalypse of John) that does NOT include those 7 books. Again, the list that has all 66 books listed but not those 7.
*The name of the complete Christian Bible, from Genesis through Revelation
(Apocalypse of John) that does NOT include those 7 books. Again, the list that has all 66 books listed but not those 7.

Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

*Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

*
Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

*Pope Innocent I

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

*http://catholicoutlook.com/objapoc1.html

Council of Florence

“[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].” (February 5, 1442)
​

​

I never thought it was such a sensitive subject. I just wanted to know if i can share with my friends without offense, what i have learnt in the books. I am still digesting some of the solid things here.

The council that i read about before, is a council of carthege.(In one of the books by Ellen G. White, the SDA, patriachs and prophets?, by ) also it was not an indepth study.

I trust that divine illumination will manifest on my side.

 

[Patristic]

Okay let's be fair. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the Roman province of Judea. Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth in the Roman province of Galilee. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ was a Jew born in Judea of Galilean resident parents under Roman civil authority. What territory was this? That is right, Jesus was a Palestine Jew.

The silence of the Apostles on these documents, not too mention Jesus silence on them is overwhelming. With all of the qoutes from the majority of the OT, anone from the apocrypha, my mind is made up. I base most of my belief that they are spurious on that.

Yes, and Jesus' and the Apostles silence on other books of the Old Testament you consider inspired is also overwhelming and clear. Your assertion that an OT book must be quoted in the NT for it to be considered Scripture does not apply to every OT book. Besides, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew not a Pharisee. You abide by the canon agreed on upon by the Pharisaical school of Hillel and not by all of Judaism. Furthermore, I think a strong case can be made that allusions and references are made to the deuterocanonical books in the NT. You may not believe this fact to be true, but this is something that I consider to be true.

 

[Ave Maria]

They might be "authentic" in the sense of this definition:

Having a claimed and verifiable origin or authorship; not counterfeit or copied: an authentic medieval sword.

and they might be good to read to get a better understanding of history. However, I don't think they are fully trustworthy. I really don't know much about the extra-biblical books of the Bible. All I know is that they don't belong in the Bible, at least not mine (Protestant Bible).

 

[Oblio]

However, I don't think they are fully trustworthy. I really don't know much about the extra-biblical books of the Bible. All I know is that they don't belong in the Bible, at least not mine (Protestant Bible).

With all due respect Holly, how do you know they do not belong ? Who told you they did not, and why do you trust them to tell you ? If you believe in Scripture alone for doctrine, what do you look to to determine the contents of Scripture if there is no inspired list of books in the Bible ?

 

[Bingley]

You are correct those are good places to start, and I will take a look at them.

What seems to be sticking in my craw about this whole thing is the fact that Paul thought of himself and even "bragged" about being a "super Jew". That is vulgar terminology I realize but bear with me. Paul said that if there was going to be anyone to brag about being a Jew or having all the right pegs in the right slots, wouldn't this Jew of Jews used the Hebrew Bible? I am a sure a Jew of his status would have had ample opportunities to view texts in all languages so I am not ruling out the LXX by any means, but I am I guess just throwing this in there for conversation sake. Either way do we know that the LXX of today is the LXX of Pauls time?

If Paul was writing in Greek, why wouldn't he use the LXX, particularly if he was writing to Gentile or mixed Gentile-Jewish or Diaspora congregations who may not have understood Hebrew anyway? Just like there wouldn't be much point in my quoting an Indonesian translation of the Bible here because no-one would understand it

 

[artybloke]

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

That would be the Quakers. Quakers weren't, and aren't, Puritans. And they didn't evolve into furniture makers. We's still around, bub, marchin' in a peace rally near you.

 

[SumTinWong]

Well, are you willing to also discard the following books?

Esther
Nehemiah
Song of Songs
Ecclesiastes
Ruth

None of these books are quoted in the New Testament. However, books that none of us regard as inspired, such as the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are referred to in the book of Jude.

Eric

Nope but in all cases we know who wrote them, and with the exception of Esther they were all written by Gods Prohpets/Chosen Ones. In the case of Esther there were NO errors in the history of the book. That seems to be something that proponents of the apocrypha are willing to over look. We are not.

What also glares out at me is that you did not mention, that NONE of the apocrypha is mentioned. NONE.