Are extra books of the bible / apocrypha authentic?

[Axion]

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.

Actually Esther also contains "historical and geographical errors" No Queen Esther is known to History. Nor is any Mordechai, or Queen Vashti. Ahasuerus Queen was not deposed, and outlived him. The Land of Agag is unknown at that time...

Daniel contains similar things, for example: Darius the Mede is unknown to history, Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar but of Nabonidus, etc.

The same sort of historical confusion in in Ezra shows King Darius appearing after Xerxes and Artaxerses, although he reigned earlier.

So do we now remove Esther, Daniel and Ezra from the canon?

Further, there are similar "historical errors" in the New Testament as well; for example, Matthew 14:3 identifies Herodias as the wife of Herod's brother Philip; Josephus, however, says she was the wife of Herod's other brother Boethus. Matthew 27:9 attributes a prophecy to Jeremiah; it is actually found in Zecheriah. Luke 2:2 says that Jesus was born when "Quirinius was governor of Syria"; but extant Roman records indicate that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was legate of Syria from 6 to 7 AD; several years after Jesus was born. So Jesus could not have been born "when Herod was king", as recorded in both Luke 1 and Matthew 2.

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

Wrong:

Heb 11:35, "...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2 Macc 7:1-29. The first half of Heb 11:35 is found in 1 Kings 17:23 and 2 Kings 4:36.

Heb 11:38, "They wandered in deserts and mountains..."
This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27.

Jn 10:22, "Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication..." The inauguration of this feast is found in 1Macc 4:36 & 52-59.

Wisdom of Solomon 9:17 Who has learned thy counsel, unless thou hast given wisdom and sent thy holy Spirit from on high?
John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Wisdom of Solomon 15:7 For when a potter kneads the soft earth and laboriously molds each vessel for our service, he fashions out of the same clay both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses, making all in like manner; but which shall be the use of each of these the worker in clay decides.
Romans 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?

Tobit 2:2 Upon seeing the abundance of food I said to my son, "Go and bring whatever poor man of our brethren you may find who is mindful of the Lord, and I will wait for you."
Luke 14:13-14 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed …

Tobit 4:15 And what you hate, do not do to any one…
Matthew 7:12 So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

1Pet 1:6-7, "...gold which is tried by fire..." See Wis 3:5-6

Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, "...all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them..." Extension of Tob 4:15

Lk 25 35-36, "I was hungry and you gave me food....I needed clothes and you clothed me." Based on Tob 4:16.

Tobit 13.16
Jerusalem shall be rebuilt as his home forever. Happy for me if a remnant of my offspring survive to see your glory and to praise the King of heaven! The gates of Jerusalem shall be built with sapphire and emerald, and all your walls with precious stones. The towers of Jerusalem shall be built with gold, and their battlements with pure gold.
17 The streets of Jerusalem shall be paved with rubies and stones of Ophir;
Quoted in
Rev 21:18, "And the material of its wall was jasper; but the city itself was pure gold, like pure glass."

Wisdom 2. A prophecy of Jesus:

13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. 14 He was made to reprove our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion. 16 We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. 18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. 20 Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected. (Wisdom 2:13-20, KJV)

 

[queenm04]

Thank you very much to you all for your responses. I have learnt a lot. What is the LXX, Tried to search on the net. But can’t quite get the meaning is it a psalm or?

 

[ExOrienteLux]

LXX is the abbreviation for the Septuagint, the Greek OT. It's abbreviated that way because it was translated by 70 scholars in Alexandria.

 

[bleechers]

Just some points of Information and useful quotes for discussion:

AD 1548 - Canonicity established by Council of Trent. All the "Church Fathers" (see: Acts 20:29-30) didn't see fit until then.

"Notwithstanding this widespread reverence for it in early times, it is a remarkable fact that the book never got a foothold in the canon or liturgy of the Church. Nevertheless, all through the Middle Ages it maintained an intermediate position between canonical and merely human compositions, and even after the Council of Trent, together with Third Esdras, was placed in the appendix to the official edition of the Vulgate." -Catholic Encyclopedia [emphasis mine]

do you care to show a reference to the early church fathers that didnt consider those books canonical? ive never heard of anything of that nature. i figured since the EO and RCC both have them in the canon that pretty much included the early church fathers as well.

"Jerome's Vulgate distinguished between the libri ecclesiastici and the libri canonici with the result that the Apocrypha were accorded a secondary status. However, at the Council of Carthage (397), which Augustine attended, it was decided to accept the Apocrypha as suitable for reading despite Jerome's resistance to their inclusion in the Vulgate. In 1548 the Council of Trent recognized the Apocrypha, excepting I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, as having unqualified canonical status. Moreover, anyone who disputed this ecclesiastical decision was anathematized. " -D H Wallace (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Emphasis mine. Anathema still in effect (re-affirmed in Vatican II).

"St. Jerome evidently applied the term [apocrypha] to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible..." - Catholic Encyclopedia


Footnote: The apocryphal books (Jerome's words) were also rejected by the Jewish Council of Jamnia (consistent with Hebrew history).


Just a point of information. It matters not how may people get together to vote on what God said. That goes for the Southern Baptist Convention as well. (see also the Pharisees and the Talmud).

 

[Oblio]

AD 1548 - Canonicity established by Council of Trent. All the "Church Fathers" (see: Acts 20:29-30) didn't see fit until then.

Bzzzzt

c.f. Council of Carthage AD 397

It matters not how may people get together to vote on what God said.

Read Acts 15 for an example of the Church making decisions in Council guided by the Holy Spirit. This is prototypical of the later Oecumenical Councils.

 

[bleechers]

Bzzzzt

c.f. Council of Carthage AD 397

Listing is not Establishing. My church voted that the Bible is the Word of God... did that matter?

In any case, take that up with our Catholic friends. I was quoting their documents.

Read Acts 15 for an example of the Church making decisions in Council guided by the Holy Spirit. This is prototypical of the later Oecumenical Councils.

But the church cannot make decisions where a truth has already been established. In Galatians 1, Paul states that even if HE or and ANGEL FROM HEAVEN preach any other gospel than that which was ALREADY PREACHED, he/they was/were to be anathema... that goes for councils as well.

 

[eightfoot514]

But the church cannot make decisions where a truth has already been established. In Galatians 1, Paul states that even if HE or and ANGEL FROM HEAVEN preach any other gospel than that which was ALREADY PREACHED, he/they was/were to be anathema... that goes for councils as well.

Exactly! That is why the Holy Spirit guides us to the Truth. The Church does not and CAN NOT invent new doctrine. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to all Truth, and no, not until the Church DID make a decision, it was not clear on what books were canonical.

John 16:13 - But when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.

1 Corinthians 2:13 - This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

John 14:26 - The Holy Spirit will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.


Eric

 

[Oblio]

In Galatians 1, Paul states that even if HE or and ANGEL FROM HEAVEN preach any other gospel than that which was ALREADY PREACHED, he/they was/were to be anathema... that goes for councils as well.

Obviously. The problem is that you are determining what that Gospel is and claiming that the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth is going against your Gospel.

Listing is not Establishing.

The Church has used the entire LXX for 2000 years not an abridged version favored by anti-christians of the first century. The Bible as is used today was Established formally in Council in the fourth century. If you deny this, please produce evidence of a Bible without the Deutercanon prior to the era of reformation.

In any case, take that up with our Catholic friends. I was quoting their documents.

With all due respect, your quoting is ambiguous. It is hard to separate your commentary from the source documents.

 

[bleechers]

With all due respect, your quoting is ambiguous. It is hard to separate your commentary from the source documents.

?? I sourced what I quoted.

Obviously. The problem is that you are determining what that Gospel is and claiming that the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth is going against your Gospel.

I didn't get it from man, nor do I need the approval of man. I determine what the gospel is based on the scriptures that teach what the gospel is, not based on traditions that contradict it. (see Acts 17:11). Timothy knew the scriptures as a child and they were able to make him wise unto salvation. Like Paul, he did not need to see Peter or any of the Apostles to approve his gospel.

Salvation is an individual matter. The Bereans were not chastised for checking Paul's gospel against the Bible. Paul was not wrong to chastise Peter when he compelled people to act in ooposition to the gospel (Gal 2)! The gospel is the gospel. It is simple (2 Cor 11) and nobody has the right to vote on it.

The Bible as is used today was Established formally in Council in the fourth century.

What makes a council in the 4th century (A) necessary or (B) more authoritative than anyone else? Heresy was rampant in the first century.

Acts 20
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

If Rome and Constantinople claim a common heritage pre-schism, why does Rome state that the Council did not canonize the apocrypha? Take that up with your Catholic friends.

 

[Oblio]

I sourced what I quoted.

You did not delineate your comments clearly.

I determine what the gospel is based on { my interpretation of } the scriptures that teach what the gospel is,

Unless you claim to be the First Pope of Me, you can be in error.

What makes a council in the 4th century (A) necessary or (B) more authoritative than anyone else?

A) Arius and Nestorius and the heresies that they spread. Evidently reborn in some modern sects of Christianity.

B) The Holy Spirit, which our Lord tells us guides them into all truth. I wasn't aware that you believed that an individual was infallable and overrides what the Church through the Holy Spirit believes.

 

[Reader Nilus]

The only Gospel there is has been preached by the apostles, martyrs and saints for the last 2000 years, the very authority that you appeal to, the New Testament was formed by the Church, which defined the canon not only of the New Testament but the old as well. I am always astounded by those who appeal to the New Testament but reject the fathers that gave it to them. One wonders how they can do that with a straight face.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Oblio]

If Rome and Constantinople claim a common heritage pre-schism, why does Rome state that the Council did not canonize the apocrypha? Take that up with your Catholic friends.

I don't speak for modern Rome, nor do I have issue with them over 4th c councils. What I have issue with is you claiming to speak for my Church without (clearly) quoting documents made by her. If you want to argue about the Bible that the Church put together 1500 years ago, don't vaguely quote documents from recent Western history apart from the Orthodox Church.

 

[eightfoot514]

why does Rome state that the Council did not canonize the apocrypha?

We say that? Where?

 

[Oblio]

He's claiming that the Deutero's were not in the RC canon until Trent. I would be much abliged if you could clear that up IIRC it had something to do with a upstart monk who took them out because he couldn't support his theology without doing so, so the RCC made a formal annoucement of what had always been believed concerning those books. Again, this is my recollection, and IANARC, so please correct me if I am wrong

 

[RobRoy]

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.

Now I am confused. What do you mean by "The Church." Which one?

 

[KennySe]

Which Christian Bible, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation, did NOT include those 7 books?

Which listing, from Genesis to Revelation, did NOT include those 7 books?

 

[SumTinWong]

Which Christian Bible, beggining with Genesis and ending with Revelation, did NOT include those 7 books?

Which listing, from Genesis to Revelation, did NOT include those 7 books?

Ask and you shall recieve.

The one that Jerome originally translated into Latin. He was persuaded by Rome to add them after the fact. He called the other books apocryphal.

 

[Oblio]

The one that Jerome originally translated into Latin.

The problem with that (even if substantiated) is that until it is used and affirmed by the Church it is simply a work in process. One person or local group does not determine the Biblical canon. This was precisely what led to the canonization in the first place, widely separate collections of 'inspired' writings, many of them heretical. Only a council led by the Holy Spirit could determine that which was truly Holy Scripture.

 

[eightfoot514]

He's claiming that the Deutero's were not in the RC canon until Trent. I would be much abliged if you could clear that up

Ah, I see. Well, the fact is that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage both affirmed the validity of these Scriptures as well as the rest of the New and Old Testaments (these councils are where Protestants get the Bible as well, aside from Luther's removals). The only thing is, the canons of the Old and New Testaments were never officially closed. That meant that if for some reason a new inspired writing came about, it could be included in the Bible if the Holy Spirit lead the Church to do so. But, of course this never happened. As far as I know, the Council of Trent was an affirmation of what the Church has always held to be true, as well as an official closing of the canons, meaning no new writings could be included in the Bible.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because all of that is from memory.

 

[Oblio]

Thanks 8F

So it appears that we are in one accord WRT to the formation of the canon in the 4th c. Which makes sense because it was before that little tiff 600 years later