Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
They didn't originate that practice. That was a custom they had inherited from earlier Anglican Bible translations, such as the Bishop's Bible; it's origin comes from Martin Luther's German translation. Luther's opinion on the Deuterocanonicals was that they were "good to read" but not Scripture. He was also of the opinion that a number of the New Testament Antilegomena were of lesser importance, having gone so far as to refer to the Epistle of James "an epistle of straw in which no Gospel can be found". As such the Luther Bible placed those books of the Antilegomena at the end instead of in their traditional place.
Luther's opinions on the Deuterocanonicals became popular with other Protestant leaders, which is why the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England did not regard them as properly canonical scripture, and hence why they were, like in Luther's translation, placed in their own appendix in official Anglican translations, such as the Authorized Version (KJV) of 1611.
The funny thing is that of all the Protestant groups that came out of the Reformation or formed later on, it's the Lutherans that never dogmatized Luther's opinion on the Deuterocanonicals. There's a pretty simple reason for this: Human opinion is not Christian dogma. So neither the opinion of Rome nor the opinion of Luther gets to declare as dogma the canonical/non-canonical status of these books.
And some of those reasons are, at places, partly incorrect, or at least largely after-the-fact ad-hoc rationales.
1) Actually, a number of the Deuterocanonical books were written in Hebrew, but for a time no Hebrew form of the texts was known, and so a lack of Hebrew source was assumed or speculated. Also, there are books in the Protocanonicals that have no Hebrew original either, such as Esther which was originally written in Aramaic.
2) Virtually no books in the Bible, Protocanonical or Deuterocanonical make claims to inspiration. This is, fundamentally, a non-argument.
3) These works were accepted by some Jews, that's how they got in the Septuagint in the first place. After the fall of Jerusalem and the ascendancy of Pharisaism, led to a more rigorous codification of Jewish practice, hence the writing down of the Mishna and Gemara in the Talmud, as well as establishing the Jewish Canon--but these things happened after the fall of Jerusalem, long after Christianity already existed. While I don't suggest ignoring Jewish opinion, as it can be quite helpful in many ways; I don't see why Christians should appeal to the authority of the Jewish rabbinate for Christian practice.
4) Documentary evidence from the first four centuries of the Church discredits that notion. The writings of the fathers from the first four centuries, when they do discuss the Old Testament Canon, do in fact contain an acceptance of at least some Deuterocanonical books, and in some cases rejections of at least one Protocanonical book. As such opinion among the fathers varied on the Old Testament just as it did for the New Testament. If you'd like such evidence I'd be happy to provide direct citations.
5) Accusations of contradiction abound for the Protocanonical books as well; as to whether such accusations have validity is beyond the scope of my point here. But this line of reasoning is rather specious and seems to be fallacious on the basis of confirmation bias.
6) Theological confirmation bias, "I don't believe in something, therefore I think this can't be Scripture". Should I do away with the Epistle of James because James says that we are justified not by faith alone but also by works? Or should I do away with the Epistles of Paul because they say that we are justified through faith alone and not by our works? Or perhaps it shouldn't be left to me as an individual to pick and choose the Biblical Canon because I'm not qualified to act as lord and master over the whole Christian Church? As for prayers for the dead specifically, one doesn't need 2 Maccabees for that, as prayers for the dead were common Jewish practice (and still is), and was always standard Christian practice, and we see it in the New Testament as well, specifically in 2 Timothy 1:16-18 in which Paul prays for the deceased Onesiphorus. Or perhaps you think we should exclude 2 Timothy from the Bible as well?
7) As opposed to the Protocanonicals in which we find lying, murder, rape, incest, and the like all the same.
Color me, over all, unimpressed. Note that my argument isn't that the Deuterocanonicals ARE Scripture, only that I find the usual arguments (including what you've presented) as incredibly weak.
My official position is that arguments in favor of the Deuterocanonicals and arguments against the Deuterocanonicals tend to be fairly weak and flimsy on both sides, and that it usually boils down to meaningless sectarian partisanship. Catholics say X, Protestants say Y, both make pretty weak cases, and as a Lutheran I consider neither particularly impressive. Which is kind of why I think the official Lutheran position of not having an official position the most sensible.
-CryptoLutheran
Actually I am impressed. I am glad to see that you are a learned man in theology.
However, you do not seem to understand why the Apocryphal books were rejected.
The real question must be, why does the Catholic Church continue to hold on to these uninspired writings ?
There is only ONE reason,
Because many of their fictitious teachings endorse false doctrines of church, such as prayers for dead, false cures, virtue in a burning heart of a fish to drive devils away, alms deeds delivering from death and sin, salvation by works.
As for flimsy and weak, I must then ask you if you have read those books?????
PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
2 Maccabees 12:43-46. ………….
"And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."
CRUELTY AND SELFISHNESS TAUGHT.
Ecclesiasticus 12 :6...…….
"Give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not to him."
MMACULATE CONCEPTION.
Wisdom 8:19, 20...…….
"And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled."
Catholics use this text to support their doctrine that Mary was born sinless.
ANOTHER BIBLE CONTRADICTION.
Judith 9:2. ……….
"O Lord God of my father Simeon, who gayest him a sword to execute vengeance against strangers."
God had nothing to do with giving a "sword into the hand of Simeon to execute vengeance" upon the people of Shechem.
ANGEL TELLS A FALSEHOOD.
Tobias 5 :15-19. "The angel said to him [Tobias]: I will conduct him [son of Tobias] thither, and bring him back to thee. And Tobias said to him [the angel]: I pray thee, Tell me, of what family, or what tribe art thou? And Raphael the angel answered: . . . I am Azarias, the son of the great Ananias. And Tobias answered: Thou art of a great family."
Should an angel of God lie about his identity, he would be guilty of violating the ninth commandment.
PURGATORY TAUGHT
Wisdom 3 :1-4. "But the souls of the just are in the hand of God : and the torment of death shall not touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die : and their departure was taken for misery. And their going away from us, for utter destruction : but they are in peace. And though in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality."
Catholic Church bases its belief for doctrine of purgatory on these texts. "Though in the sight of men they suffer torments, their hope is full of immortality."
THAT IS ONLY A FEW OF THE MANY DISTORTIONS AND LIES AND YOU SAY
FLIMSY AND WEAK????????
Upvote
0