Are extra books of the bible / apocrypha authentic?

[Lynn73]

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.

Very well said. A hearty amen.

 

[Jay2004]

one other thing to mention.

The 3 oldest known bibles in the world...

The Codex Vaticanus, Sinaitus and Alexandrian all have the deutronomical books in them. It was Martin Luther who removed them. He also wanted to remove the book of James because it did not support his Faith Alone tradition...

The Apocryphal books were considered scripture at the very beginning of Christianity. Martin Luther based his opinion on the Apocryphal books on the view that the Jews do not support them as scripture. That view was very flawed because the Jews can not be considered an authority, because they will also tell you that the entire New Testament is not scripture as well. So we must look to an early Christian authority. The early Christian authority certainly did reckognize the Apocrypha as Holy scripture and in that case we must too.

 

[lionroar0]

To keep bringing Jerome as a valid argument against the deurocanonical books is well just silly. It was the Church that stablished the canon not Jerome as much as he protested against the deuteros. He had no authority to decide the canon the Church does and it did.

 

[verismo]

???

lookie lookie fortune cookie.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

 

[verismo]

...
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.

Did Paul speak on the OT canon in his gospel message?

 

[Oblio]

Yes, bleechers, please tell us what other Gospel is preached in the LXX Deutercanon.

 

[lionroar0]

Hey there's no lucky numbers in that fortune cookie!!!!! (jk).lol

 

[verismo]

Hey there's no lucky numbers in that fortune cookie!!!!! (jk).lol

Sure there are: verse numbers!

 

[lionroar0]

So true.lol

 

[SumTinWong]

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.

KennySe asked for a reference to a Bible that did not have them, pre reformation. I gave him one.

 

[Reader Nilus]

How does one know that St Paul's letter to the Galatians is authentic? In fact how does one take any of the so called books of the Bible, as the Scripture that St Paul referred to? It is a huge leap to assume that the leather bound book that you bought down at the store is the scriptures that St Paul referred to. The fact is that the Church defined the canon, and it did not appear out of nowhere. The same council that everyone accepts for the New Testament also defined the old, and it was not the edited Bible of Luther and the reformers.
Jeff the Finn

 

[queenm04]

Thanks a mil guys for your enlightening posts! I have always humbly, in the back of my mind been curious on the process that went on before the bible was put together. May God ‘s word continue to be a lamp unto our feet!

 

[SummaScriptura]

Show us the first Bible that rejected them.

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

http://www.handsonapologetics.com/Geneva_Bible.htm

No. The Bible of the Puritans was the Geneva Bible, which in the tradition of all the early English translations of the Bible, included those books mis-named "Apocrypha".

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

Do you mean the Quakers? The Shakers believed their leader was the 2nd-coming. The Quakers, weren't the Quakers from the Mennonites? I beleive the Mennonites believe in free will and the Puritans were Calvinists.

 

[BigNorsk]

Cardinal Cajetan gives us understanding in this matter. A lot of it is simply sematics. The same words being used in different senses.

[SIZE=+1]

[SIZE=+1]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 among the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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 canonical. For the words as well as 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 clear through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage’ [/SIZE][SIZE=-1](Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. Taken from his comments on the final chapter of Esther. Cited by William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: University Press, 1849), p. 48).[/SIZE]

For those not familiar, Cardinal Cajetan was sent by Rome to deal with Luther. We don't see a dispute concerning canon because Luther was in agreement with and used the canon the same as did the Roman Catholic Church at the time.

If one looks at the resources used by Luther in his translation of the Bible, they were in agreement concerning canon. Luther did not innovate but followed the canon as he received it even though he did state he had personal misgivings about some of the books.

It creates difficulties for Catholics to appeal to the regional councils that dealt with canon as the authorities with set the canon.

First of all because there were many, many Catholics who did not follow those councils if the canon was supposedly set. Secondly the Catholic Church itself teaches it was Trent that set the canon. And lastly because while it can be difficult to see, Trent didn't actually follow those councils.

That can be seen in the example of 1 and 2 Esdras. At the time of Carthage 2 Esdras was the combined Ezra-Nehemiah. 1 Esdras was known as 3 Esdras in the Vulgate and was excluded by Trent.

Marv

[/SIZE]