Question about Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals

[LuxPerpetua]

As many of you know, I am in the process of examining my own Protestantism, and at the moment I am trying to determine if I think that Protestantism contains the "fullness of the faith" as I've seen so many of you describe it. It is this questioning that leads me to the question I am now asking you:

I know that both the Catholic and the Orthodox church accept books of the Old Testament and a few additions to passages in the New Testament that are rejected by Protestants. For those of you who have studied the Reformation and the emergence of the Protestant Bible, on what grounds do Protestants reject these books? When were these books removed from the Protestant Bible? How can we know that these books are not divinely inspired?

ME =

****To spare this thread from debate or argument, I am asking that only Protestants answer. I hate doing this to my Catholic and Orthodox siblings, because I do value their input, but I'm getting a bit tired of getting mod warnings posted in my threads from non-PRE members debating, and since this issue is a divisive point between Protestants and non-Protestants, it is probably best to ask that only PRE members answer.


Hugs to all!

 

[Svt4Him]

One should be surprised that that disclaimer is needed since we are in the protestant area, but alas I see it is so.

If you want some divisive points, why not address salvation, the Papacy, the priests, the sacrifice of the mass or Mary. Then you also need to look at Catechism teachings, as a lot of this is found there. Finally an issue to look at would be purgatory, and the Biblical support for it. Some of these, although not all, are pretty fundamental teachings.

 

[InquisitorKind]

I know that both the Catholic and the Orthodox church accept books of the Old Testament and a few additions to passages in the New Testament that are rejected by Protestants. For those of you who have studied the Reformation and the emergence of the Protestant Bible, on what grounds do Protestants reject these books? When were these books removed from the Protestant Bible? How can we know that these books are not divinely inspired?

I appreciate your investigation into these matters. I hope that you are presented with much helpful and informative material.

I only wanted to make two short points, as this is a subject I don't know a lot about.

1) The Protestant position is more historically grounded than the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox one, as I do not know of any councils or persons that have held to their respective canons since at least Trent. Although the early church's view of the Old Testament canon was wide and varied, at least Protestants have historical grounds in that fathers like Jerome believed, along with Protestants later, that the Jewish canon was to be followed (Romans 3:2).

2) The answer to your questions is, IMHO, something that falls under the simple truth that God's people will hear His voice. How did the Jewish people recognize when God spoke?

You should find this article helpful:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/canon.htm

~Matt

 

[LuxPerpetua]

One should be surprised that that disclaimer is needed since we are in the protestant area, but alas I see it is so.

If you want some divisive points, why not address salvation, the Papacy, the priests, the sacrifice of the mass or Mary. Then you also need to look at Catechism teachings, as a lot of this is found there. Finally an issue to look at would be purgatory, and the Biblical support for it. Some of these, although not all, are pretty fundamental teachings.

Let's stay on topic, okay?

I am not looking for division but clarification of Protestant beliefs, namely why Protestants reject the Deuterocanonicals.

 

[Lotar]

The problem with the apocrypha and deutrocanons is how most Protestants, and the post-Trent Catholic Church for that matter, view the Bible. They see it as a fixed set of books that are divinely inspired, all of equal importance and authority.

Lutherans, and I believe Orthodox, don't see it this way. One, the canon isn't really set in stone, it's something that's been debated almost as long as the Church has been around. Therefor, distintions must be made. The most important, and central part of scripture, by which all doctrine must be judged by is the the homologoumena, which is the Gospels, Paul's letters, etc., which were the NT books universally accepted by the early Church. Then there is the antilogoumena, James, Revelations, Hebrews, etc., the NT books that were not universally accept and objections were raised to during the formation of the canon. The OT is even more tricky, there are plenty of divisions there, but in simple terms, most (not all) books of the Hebrew canon were universally accepted, though they still occupy a lower significance than the NT books. The Apocryphal and, even more so, the dueterocanonical books, were not universally accepted, so are the least authoritive of the books of the Bible.

So, in abbreviated terms, it goes like this:

Most authoritive - NT - homologoumena - All doctrine must be judged, and have it's basis, in these books. Other books provide authoritive support.

Next comes - NT - antilogoumena

Then - OT - Hebrew canon (close enough for these purposes)

Then - OT - Apocrypha

Lastly - OT - Duetrocanons


Then comes Church Tradition, it's different levels.

 

[LuxPerpetua]

I hate to bother you, Lotar, but can you tell me which of the books fit into these categories:

Most authoritive - NT - homologoumena - All doctrine must be judged, and have it's basis, in these books. Other books provide authoritive support.

Next comes - NT - antilogoumena

Thanks!

 

[Lotar]

I hate to bother you, Lotar, but can you tell me which of the books fit into these categories:

Most authoritive - NT - homologoumena - All doctrine must be judged, and have it's basis, in these books. Other books provide authoritive support.

Next comes - NT - antilogoumena

Thanks!

It's no bother

I'm sort of new to this understanding myself, so don't take my list as authoritive, it's off of the top of my head


Sorry, I spelt Antilegomena wrong :o :
James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelations

Homologoumena:
I believe it's everything else.

 

[Philip]

Lutherans, and I believe Orthodox, don't see it this way.

Correct, except that we may catagorize the books differently.

Then - OT - Apocrypha
Lastly - OT - Duetrocanons

Could you list the members these groups? I thought that what I called Deuterocanon was the same as what you called Apocrypha.

Then comes Church Tradition, it's different levels.

I don't think we would place Tradition at the bottom of the list. Tradition, in some sense, is outside the list. After all, identifying the books and dividing them into categories is a matter of Tradition.

 

[Lotar]

Correct, except that we may catagorize the books differently.



Could you list the members these groups? I thought that what I called Deuterocanon was the same as what you called Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha are the book included in the Roman canon, but not in most other Protestant canons, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc.

The Deuterocanon are the books included in Eastern canons but not Latin Vulgate, 3 and 4 Maccabees, etc.

I don't think we would place Tradition at the bottom of the list. Tradition, in some sense, is outside the list. After all, identifying the books and dividing them into categories is a matter of Tradition.

True, I was thinking about that and was going to ammend. We view Tradition as authorative in interperating scripture. So, doctrine based on scripture without tradition has no authority, but neither does tradition without scripture. Of course, this is only when dealing with dogma, basing personal beliefs off of tradition is perfectly acceptable.

But also, our order of authority in Tradition would differ some as well:
The Creeds
Lutheran Confessions
the 7 Ecumenical Councils
and so on

 

[Philip]

The Apocrypha are the book included in the Roman canon, but not in most other Protestant canons, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc.

The Deuterocanon are the books included in Eastern canons but not Latin Vulgate, 3 and 4 Maccabees, etc.

Ah, I see. I call both of these 'Deuterocanon' and call books like Enoch and Jubilees 'Apocrypha'.

True, I was thinking about that and was going to ammend. We view Tradition as authorative in interperating scripture. So, doctrine based on scripture without tradition has no authority, but neither does tradition without scripture. Of course, this is only when dealing with dogma, basing personal beliefs off of tradition is perfectly acceptable.

Careful -- you are dangerously close to sounding Orthodox. Now, if we can just get you to use the correct Tradition.

 

[Lotar]

Careful -- you are dangerously close to sounding Orthodox. Now, if we can just get you to use the correct Tradition.

We already do use the right Tradition. I mean, how do you guys survive without Augustine, Melanchthon, and the two Martins?

Unlike the radical Reformed and Anabaptist movements, the Lutheran reformation was a conservative one. Ours was because we stood against the innovations of the Roman Church, which is why we consider ourselves to be the true Church catholic. The Greek Church is mentioned quite often in our confessions, especially where we were confronting accusations of innovation.

 

[pmcleanj]

Ah, I see. I call both of these 'Deuterocanon' and call books like Enoch and Jubilees 'Apocrypha'.

What do you call First and Second Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses?

 

[Philip]

What do you call First and Second Esdras

A confusing set of names

What I call 1 Esdras is not in either the Catholic or Protestant canons, but I count it as Deuterocanonical.

What I call 2 Esdras, Catholics call 1 Esdras and Protestants Ezra. It is Protocanonical.

What I call Nehemiah, Catholics call 2 Esdras and Protestants (wisely ) follow Orthodox tradition. It is Protocanonical.

the Prayer of Manasses?

Deuterocanonical, but towards the bottom of that list.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

This is the listing I have from my courses at school:

Old Testament Apocrypha

* 1 Esdras
* 2 Esdras
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees
* 3 Maccabees
* 4 Maccabees
* Letter of Jeremiah
* The Prayer of Azariah
* Baruch
* Prayer of Manassas
* Bel and the Dragon
* Wisdom of Sirach
* Wisdom of Solomon
* Additions to Esther
* Tobit
* Judith
* Susanna
* Psalm 151

Pseudepigrapha

* The Books of Adam and Eve -- translation of the Latin version
* Life of Adam and Eve -- translation of the Slavonic version
* Life of Adam and Eve -- translation of the Greek version (a.ka. The Apocalypse of Moses)
* The Apocalypse of Adam
* The Book of Adam
* The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
* 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch)
* 1 Enoch Composit (inc. Charles, Lawrence & others)
* 2 Enoch (Slavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch)
* Enoch (another version)
* Gilgamesh The Flood Narrative From the Gilgamesh Epic
* Melchizedek
* The Testament of Abraham
* Joseph and Aseneth
* Revelation of Moses
* The Assumption of Moses (aka: The Testament of Moses)
* The Martyrdom of Isaiah
* The Ascension of Isaiah
* The Revelation of Esdras
* The Book of Jubilees
* Tales of the Patriarchs
* The Letter of Aristeas
* The Book of the Apocalypse of Baruch (aka: 2 Baruch)
* The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (aka: 3 Baruch)
* Fragments of a Zadokite work (aka: The Damascus Document)

That is from one source, there are others as well. I am interested in learning more about this. I need to find my other sources as well. This is making me dig up a BUNCH of stuff.

 

[Bro. Gabriel]

don't forget the Apocalypse of Peter

 

[Philip]

That is from one source, there are others as well. I am interested in learning more about this. I need to find my other sources as well. This is making me dig up a BUNCH of stuff.

Have you looked at EarlyChristianWritings.com ? There are links to many resources there.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I had not been there, but thank you so much for the link

 

[Rilian]

I think taking a historical perspective would give weight to the inclusion of the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books. The Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septaugint or LXX, which included these books was used by the Jewish Diaspora in the Roman world and would have been the scriptures used by the early Christians. I don’t believe there was a closed canon of scripture at this time. I believe around 80 or 85% of the OT quotes in the NT are drawn from the LXX.

The Masoretic texts which do not include these books really began to take their real shape at the Council of Jabneh. This council took place after the fall of the Temple and after the initial rise of Christianity. There was a perceived need to protect Jewish identity and the Hebrew language. The interesting thing is that it was also at this time that the Rabbis officially condemned the teachings of Jesus and the Christian gospels. After this council or meeting of the academy the Hebrew canon was still somewhat fluid with certain books such as Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Esther being questioned as being truly inspired. Eventually they were included in the Hebrew Tanakh.

Clearly there was a lot of debate in the early Church about inclusion of the deuterocanonical books. In general aside from Jerome, they were heavily favored by the Latin fathers, especially Augustine. Controversy wasn’t limited to these books only though, I believe Esther was also one that was hotly contested. I believe that one lingered on and I think Luther said something along the lines of wanting to toss Esther in the Elbe.

To actually address your question, these are the three main reasons I’ve heard for not including the Deuterocanonicals:

- They are not once quoted by the New Testament writers.
- The books were not written in Hebrew but in Greek.
- They are self-evidently not inspired.

The first point is quite true, even though as I mentioned the quotes most often found in the NT from the OT are from the LXX. There are other books in the OT which are never quoted in the NT such as Esther, Judges or Song of Solomon which are in the canon. I think it’s also somewhat circular to prove scripture by quoting scripture. The second point for a long time I think was assumed to be true, but among the texts found at Qumran I believe was found part or all of Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom) in Hebrew plus fragments of Tobit. The Qumran texts, which may be the oldest Hebrew ones we have access to, also in many places matched up quite well with the LXX. I think it’s also a little ironic to give weight to the Hebrew texts sanctioned by Jabneh when that same council officially renounced and rejected Christianity. The third argument I think is more a matter of interpretation, but I do think some of the arguments used to show how the deuterocanonicals are not inspired could also be applied to other books which are accepted as canonical.

 

[Polycarp1]

Anglicans, including Episcopalians, stand (not surprisingly) with the Lutherans with regard to Tradition and with regard to content. Interestingly, Methodists formally take the same position. From the Articles of Religion:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

Genesis,

Exodus,

Leviticus,

Numbers,

Deuteronomy,

Joshua,

Judges,

Ruth,

The First Book of Samuel,

The Second Book of Samuel,

The First Book of Kings,

The Second Book of Kings,

The First Book of Chronicles,

The Second Book of Chronicles,

The First Book of Esdras,

The Second Book of Esdras,

The Book of Esther,

The Book of Job,

The Psalms,

The Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes or Preacher,

Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,

Four Prophets the greater,

Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras,

The Fourth Book of Esdras,

The Book of Tobias,

The Book of Judith,

The rest of the Book of Esther,

The Book of Wisdom,

Jesus the Son of Sirach,

Baruch the Prophet,

The Song of the Three Children,

The Story of Susanna,

Of Bel and the Dragon,

The Prayer of Manasses,

The First Book of Maccabees,

The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we
do receive, and account them Canonical.

VII. Of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

 

[Lotar]

Clearly there was a lot of debate in the early Church about inclusion of the deuterocanonical books. In general aside from Jerome, they were heavily favored by the Latin fathers, especially Augustine. Controversy wasn’t limited to these books only though, I believe Esther was also one that was hotly contested. I believe that one lingered on and I think Luther said something along the lines of wanting to toss Esther in the Elbe.

Actually Luther was just making the distinction I pointed out earlier. Augustine was a big supporter of the Apocrypha, but even he made the distinction of authority.

To actually address your question, these are the three main reasons I’ve heard for not including the Deuterocanonicals:

- They are not once quoted by the New Testament writers.
- The books were not written in Hebrew but in Greek.
- They are self-evidently not inspired.

The first point is quite true, even though as I mentioned the quotes most often found in the NT from the OT are from the LXX. There are other books in the OT which are never quoted in the NT such as Esther, Judges or Song of Solomon which are in the canon. I think it’s also somewhat circular to prove scripture by quoting scripture. The second point for a long time I think was assumed to be true, but among the texts found at Qumran I believe was found part or all of Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom) in Hebrew plus fragments of Tobit. The Qumran texts, which may be the oldest Hebrew ones we have access to, also in many places matched up quite well with the LXX. I think it’s also a little ironic to give weight to the Hebrew texts sanctioned by Jabneh when that same council officially renounced and rejected Christianity. The third argument I think is more a matter of interpretation, but I do think some of the arguments used to show how the deuterocanonicals are not inspired could also be applied to other books which are accepted as canonical.

This quote might be helpful:

Almost all OT Scriptures, with the probable exception of Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Ezra, are either quoted or alluded to in the New Testament. References to apocryphal writings are also made (Ja 1:19 [Ecclus 5:11]; Mt 27:43 [Wis 2:13, 18–20]; Eph 6:11, 13–17 [Wis 5:17–21]). Occasionally also Pseudepigrapha are cited. Jude 14–16 quotes Enoch 1:9. Jerome says the quotation in Mt 27:9 was taken from a writing attributed to Jeremiah, but there is strong possibility that in this passage we are dealing with scribal interpretation.

http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/