questions about the apocrypha

[kimber1]

first , let me start out by saying that i am in no way slamming Catholics in anyway. I just have some questions that only you guys can answer!! i am Baptist so i have never encountered the books of the apocrypha myself until i started doing some research and reading.

my questions are who decided these books are inspired? and by what means?

I've read that these books were included in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible.

So, i guess my main question is why arne't they in all versions of the Bible rather than just the Catholic ones? (did i word that right? i seriously mean no offense to anyone here, i'm merely curious.)

I've read bits and pieces of some of these books and can't really understand why other branches of religion (or maybe other denominations is a better word) would find them offensive or whatever.

okay, i'm rambling now so if anyone could answer this i would greatly appreciate it!!

 

[Philip]

my questions are who decided these books are inspired? and by what means?

They were quoted by the earliest Christians as Scripture. It is more accurate to ask, "Who decided these books are not inspired? and by what means?"

I've read that these books were included in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible.

This is partially correct. You must keep in mind that at the time of Christ, the idea of a fix canon did not exist. Many texts were considered inspired even if they were not formally part of the Hebrew Scriptures. Further, not all of the Israelites agreed on what was Scripture and what was not.

So, i guess my main question is why arne't they in all versions of the Bible rather than just the Catholic ones?

Your question could best be answered by Martin Luther. He removed them.

I've read bits and pieces of some of these books and can't really understand why other branches of religion (or maybe other denominations is a better word) would find them offensive or whatever.

I agree. Read the second chapter of Wisdom. I think it is the most obvious proohesy of our Lord's suffering.

Some people claim that the books of the Deuterocanon teach such things as lying and suicide. (They don't.) Some people claim that the books contradict the rest of Scripture. (They don't, although they do contradict some people's interpretation of Scripture.)

 

[Benedicta00]

Hi Kimber,

I’ll keep it brief, I’ll give you my take on it and someone else can come along and clarify or even correct me if need be.

The books were in the canon since day one. The Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria always had these books and the Pharisees Rabbi party did not accept them. The Catholic Church always accepted them. That is where I think the confusion comes in about why these books were not accepted.

It was the Jews who did not accept them, not the Christians.

St. Jerome was in Jerusalem studying Hebrew with the Jewish Rabbis and he may not have even known about these books, this is where most of the confusion comes in about whether or not Christians at that time accepted them or not.

Jerome did not use them but the Church did present them to the pope and they were received and canonized along with the entire Christian canon. What some non Catholics do not realize is that what Jerome or any other “saint” or Church father thought about these books, it is the Holy See who speaks for the Church and not the individual and even if there were some early Christian who were not aware of these books, they still submitted their obedience to the Church and accepted them.

Martin Luther used these early examples the early church fathers writings to make a case for throwing them out and he did. He removed them and put them into a separate non inspired section of scripture and he even tried to say that James was also uninspired and IIRC, also he wanted to remove Revelations as well but he was prevented from doing so.

My belief as a Catholic is that Martin Luther knew he had no authority as a fellow Catholic to reject the Church’s authority so he went against that authority and threw out the books because they contradicted his theology and he even went as far as to add in “alone” to St. Paul’s words to further his belief in “faith alone.”

What is funny is that these books were in all Protestant bibles up until about 100 years ago and now they are gone and I do not know why. My guess is that they actually support the doctrine of purgatory and the communion of the saints.

 

[kimber1]

he even tried to say that James was also uninspired and IIRC, also he wanted to remove Revelations as well but he was prevented from doing so

wow, i did not know that!!

I guess this is why there is such a rift between Catholics adn Protestants? i am so sorry. hmmmmm, me thinks i have a lot of studying to do. see this is why i don't do a lot of research because then i hear or read something that makes me question who is really right to begin with.

i'm beginning to feel like i've been taught all wrong...

 

[kimber1]

okay, i have yet another question.. i've just skimmed through an online copy of Ecclesiasticus. is this supposed to be a branch off of Ecclesiastes as there seems to be a lot of smiliarities in the 2 books? and in the Catholic church; do you have 2 books; the Bible and the Apocrypha or are they combined? adn where could i get my hands on a copy?

 

[nyj]

I've just skimmed through an online copy of Ecclesiasticus. is this supposed to be a branch off of Ecclesiastes as there seems to be a lot of smiliarities in the 2 books?

Not that I am aware of. From what I've read of this book, and from scholars, it is more along the lines of Proverbs. Here is an article on Sirach.

and in the Catholic church; do you have 2 books; the Bible and the Apocrypha or are they combined? and where could i get my hands on a copy?

No, they're one book. The seven deuterocanonical books (which have been given the name "apocryphal" in Protestant circles) are dispersed throughout the Old Testament books, which we consider them on par with.

You can find their order in the Catholic Bible at the United States Council of Catholic Bishops website which has the New American Bible online.

If you want an actual book (not online) Bible though, you can get one of the following Catholic Bibles.

1. New American Bible (NAB)
2. Revised Standard Version : Catholic Edition (RSV:CE)
3. New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) or the Jerusalem Bible
4. Douay-Rheims (DR)

You can find the NAB in most bookstores. The version I have runs around 8 to 10 dollars (might be cheaper). It's paperback, has a red cover with white lettering. The pages have a newspaper feel to them. If it says "New American Bible" on it, it's a Catholic Bible. Not to be confused with the New American Standard Bible though. If you really want to make sure though, check the copyright. It'll be from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

[Philip]

Ecclesiasticus is a wisdom book like Ecclesiastes, but they are different. Ecclesiasticus is now usually called Sirach, after its author. The name Ecclesiasticus means "Rules for the Church" or something like that.

The books of the Deuterocanon are integrated into the Old Testament. You can get a copy of a Catholic Bible at most bookstores -- I would recommend the RSV-CE. Also, there are many online copies of the Deutorocanon. If you don't already have E-Sword, download it now. (It's free.) You can download countless translations of the Bible for it, including the KJVA and the Douay-Rhimes translations. Both of these have the Deuterocanon as part of the OT. If you want the RSV translation, PM either me or Oblio.

 

[artnalex]

Kimber1,
not only has the church always deemed the deauterocanonicals books as "inspired", but Jesus and the Apostles quoted from them. Matthew quoted from the Septuagint 130 times in his Gospel. The simple answer is that if it was good enough for Jesus and his Apostles it should be good enough for his present day followers.

After the Hebrew texts were translated into Greek, some new writings were also added into the Greek. These were pretty much historical and wisdom writings. These existed, however, only in the Greek texts, the Septuagint.

We know that it is false to say that the New Testament writers did not quote from the Septuagint. We do not know this from the books they chose to quote; but from the language of the quote.

For example, let's look at Matthew 1:23.

Look! the virgin is with child and will give birth to a son whom they will call Immanuel.

Here, Matthew is quoting Isaiah 7:14. We know, however, that it is the Greek Septuagint Matthew is quoting and not the original Hebrew text. Why? Because the original Hebrew text said nothing about a virgin; whereas, the Greek Septuagint did. The bible translation in the New Jerusalem Bible, which relies on the Hebrew manuscripts for its translation, renders this translation:

The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

The Hebrew word for "young woman" was rendered in the Septuagint with the Greek word for "virgin." That Matthew cites the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text for his quote reveals the use of the Septuagint among the early christians. There are, of course, many other examples.

The first century Jews abandoned the Septuagint primarily for identity reasons. Their temple was destroyed by the Romans and Jews, once again, were being scattered all over the place. At the same time, the christian sect was growing rapidly. The Jews were losing their identity (particularly since their unique identity had been so tied up in the temple). In an effort to re-assert their identity, the Jews re-asserted their use of Hebrew. Since the Septuagint was in Greek, the Jews abandoned the Septuagint for the older Hebrew texts.

 

[nyj]

Hi kimber1, hopefully we can provide you with charitable and honest answers to your questions. Thanks for approaching us in a manner conducive to civil, charitable and honest discussion.

my questions are who decided these books are inspired? and by what means?

The Catholic Church believes that the Church, entrusted by Jesus Christ, and inspired by the Holy Spirit decided through a series of church councils, which books of the Bible were considered inspired. Church Fathers spent generations examining books/epistles written both pre and post Pentecost in terms of their potential inspiration as Old Testament or New Testament works. Starting at the Council of Rome (in 382 AD) we see a consistent listing of the books that Catholics now consider the Old Testament. In the span of the next fourty or so years, two more councils (3rd Council of Carthage and the Council of Hippo) have identical lists of which Old Testament books should be considered inspired. The seven Deuterocanon books are listed in both, with no distinction given between them and the other OT books.

It should also be noted that the New Testament went through a similiar process. Each book/epistle of the New Testament, was written as a distinct entity. For instance, Paul's Epistles were written individually, not as a compliation. Therefore, each Epistle had to be collected and then authenticated. Same held true for each of the four Gospels and the General Epistles.

I've read that these books were included in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible.

The Deuterocanon is included in the canon of the Alexandrian Jews, which had a larger canon than that of their counterparts in Jerusalem. However, it should be noted that the Hebrew Canon was not considered closed, and formalized until AD 90 at the Jewish Council of Jamnia. That they spend time condemning the New Testament at this council shows that they were clearly combating the influence Christianity had on their faith. It should also be noted that Josephus states that though the Jews don't include books such as Maccabees 1&2 in their official canon, that the Jews consider those books inspired by God and worthy to be defended until death.

So, i guess my main question is why arne't they in all versions of the Bible rather than just the Catholic ones?

It wouldn't be right not to mention the fact that there was some dissent on the nature of these books in terms of their inspiration. The most famous example is St. Jerome who didn't consider several of the deuterocanonical books to be inspired. However, Jerome was basing his opinion on the Hebrew Jewish Old Testament, rather than the Alexandrian Jewish Old Testament. In addition, there are a couple of other Church Fathers who didn't think some of the deuterocanonical books were inspired, but when one examines the lists they provide for what they consider to be lacking inspiration there is no consensus. In addition, they often exclude some of the books which even Protestants agree on (such as Esther) as being canonical. In the Catholic Church, the overwhelming majority of Church fathers considered the deuterocanon as canonical, as evidenced by their writings and their various quotations from these books.

I've read bits and pieces of some of these books and can't really understand why other branches of religion (or maybe other denominations is a better word) would find them offensive or whatever.

I'm not sure. As Philip said, the 2nd Chapter of Wisdom especially verses 12-20 seem to be the strongest prophecy of the death of Jesus Christ that one can find in the Bible.

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.

I hope this helps.

 

[kimber1]

hmmm, i think i'm going to start having to preface all my answers to peoples questions with "from what i've been taught".
like i said earlier, i jsut cannot understand why these books are so looked down upon by other denominations. i've skimmed through the majority of them this morning and i just don't get why Martin Luther (that's right isn't it?) felt they needed to be taken out? by what authority did he have the right to say what should and shouldn't be in the Bible?

i especially liked the book of Susanna (is that right?) about how she in the end got justice for being falsely accused. i mean, to me that would be a great book to have in there because it shows that justice does prevail.

just color me confused now, because i just don't understand why there should be such a split between Catholics and other denominations. i mean, i totally confess in saying i've been wrongly taught in that Catholics come across as "superior" to all other denominations. i feel like i should apologize on behalf of every denomination out there because it jsut seems to me that this huge split was all because of someone's "high horse" attitude that they thought they knew what people should and should not have in their Bibles.

thank you every one for your answers. i see i have much to learn!

 

[Miss Shelby]

wow, i did not know that!![/font]

I guess this is why there is such a rift between Catholics adn Protestants? i am so sorry. hmmmmm, me thinks i have a lot of studying to do. see this is why i don't do a lot of research because then i hear or read something that makes me question who is really right to begin with.

i'm beginning to feel like i've been taught all wrong...

kimber,

Don't be discouraged, and don't feel like you've been taught all wrong. The Lord led you to Christianity and Praise God for that. There is an awful lot to be learned, but I personally am more and more encouraged when people like you ask questions sincerely desiring to learn, and to help the rift between Catholics and Protestants be healed.

You've blessed me today, sis. Thank you.

Michelle

 

[artnalex]

Here are thebooks that are not included in most protestants Bible:


Judith

Tobit

1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees

Wisdom of Solomon

Ben-Sira (Sirach)

1 Baruch

(also, there are parts of Daniel that have been taken out of Protestants Bibles as well).

 

[Hoonbaba]

Here's a few useful links:

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

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

As others already mentioned, there's a Messianic prophecy from Wisdom 2 which is almost undeniable, but first let's check out Wisdom 2...

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)

Now check out Matthew 27...

Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God (Matthew 27:42-43, KJV)

Clearly the Wisdom passage is a direct reference to Jesus the Son of God and one easy explanation for why Wisdom was taken out by the 1st century Jews (as opposed to Christians) is very simple: Wisdom was too much of a messianic problem for their theology since they didn't believe in Christ!

 

[DJ B.K.]

thanks for bringing up those questions kimber1. I've been having questions about the differences between the catholic and protestant bibles. I don't understand everything that was brought up here because I'm still new to really studying christianity but this thread did clear some stuff up though.

 

[Hoonbaba]

Actually, Catholics aren't the only ones who have the seven books included in their bibles

Eastern Orthodoxy retains them too =)

-Jason

 

[Benedicta00]

hmmm, i think i'm going to start having to preface all my answers to peoples questions with "from what i've been taught".
like i said earlier, i jsut cannot understand why these books are so looked down upon by other denominations. i've skimmed through the majority of them this morning and i just don't get why Martin Luther (that's right isn't it?) felt they needed to be taken out? by what authority did he have the right to say what should and shouldn't be in the Bible?

And that is the 50,000-million dollar question. On who's authority? It always boils down to authority and who has it.

just color me confused now, because i just don't understand why there should be such a split between Catholics and other denominations. i mean, i totally confess in saying i've been wrongly taught in that Catholics come across as "superior" to all other denominations. i feel like i should apologize on behalf of every denomination out there because it jsut seems to me that this huge split was all because of someone's "high horse" attitude that they thought they knew what people should and should not have in their Bibles.

Not to sound to bias here for the Catholic side of the story but I believe he took them out and he threw out the oral traditions simply because they contradicted his own theology that he was pushing.

I believe Martin Luther honestly believed that Paul meant faith alone and he saw himself for that reason justified to do all that he did but the changes he had to make in order to make this fly for him is what, IMO divided Christianity until the present day and the extremes he had to go through show, to me, that this could not have been from God. Not to mention the fact that it opened the door for other "reformers" to come in and give us there take on what the bible "really" teaches.

This is what happens when you take away the Church's authority, throw out the traditions and those books, you can come up with any theology you wish, basically.

Like I said, these are my opinions and I do not view any Protestant today as having a fault in believing what they do. They have been taught that they needed freeing from the Roman Catholic Church and some people have no way of knowing what really happened. I know that God does not hold that against them.

 

[kimber1]

okay so now i have another question!! bear with me folks, i'm trying to take baby steps here!!!

hoonbaba, in your first quote from Wisdom 2 at the end you reference it to "Wisdom 2 13-20 KJV" so is that saying it's in a King James Version Bible and why doens't mine have that?????? *kim bangs her head on the keyboard*

there's so much i don't understand. I sat here off and on today adn read up things about Catholicism. there are some things i admit that i can't grasp because well, i've always been taught that there is no purgatory, a mere man can't absolve you of your sins therefore you can't confess to a priest. and i'm more confused than i ever was!! but then i guess it's all in how you were raised to believe.

but i do have a new understanding of y'alls frustrations. i do think i'll be doing some more research though because the whole thing is really bothering me now.

but thank you for all your answers adn i'm sure i
ll have more soon! any info y'all can give me would be appreciated.

 

[Axion]

Yes. The original King James Bible, contained the Seven books, but put in a separate section called "The Apocrypha". For official readings, the Church of England still uses the full King James Bible, since some of the seven books are set down for weekday readings.

The Seven books were only removed from most Protestant bibles as recently as 1825, when extremists managed to hijack the British and Foreign Bible Society and demanded that all future bibles be printed without the seven books.

PS Thanks for the Wisdom 2 quote, Hoonbaba, it certainly sticks right out when highlighted like that. How can anyone say that Wisdom was not inspired? And I can see why the disbelieving Jews got rid of it.

 

[artnalex]

hoonbaba, in your first quote from Wisdom 2 at the end you reference it to "Wisdom 2 13-20 KJV" so is that saying it's in a King James Version Bible and why doens't mine have that??????

Actually, the original King James Bible had the deuterocanonical books included.

there are some things i admit that i can't grasp because well, i've always been taught that there is no purgatory,

Purgatory is not that hard to grasp, and most people already believe in its purpose, but just don't know that they are close to understanding and believing in it already. Try and understand the purpose of purgatory, which is to cleanse you of your sins before you go into heaven. No sin can enter heaven. Many times we forget to ask for forgiveness before we die. Purgatory cleanses you of that sin. Remember, if you are in purgatory, you are going to Heaven.

a mere man can't absolve you of your sins therefore you can't confess to a priest.

And of course we know this not to be true, as Jesus himself instituted the priesthood for his Church, and also deacons. And if we never needed to ask forgiveness through a priest, then why did he give the apostles the power to forgive sins. In order for the apostles to forgive sins, someone would have to ask for their forgiveness, no?

but i do have a new understanding of y'alls frustrations. i do think i'll be doing some more research though because the whole thing is really bothering me now.

Read, read, read.

You can go to this site for andswers to many of your typical questions about Catholicism and its doctrines:
Dave Armstrong - website

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Purgatory is not that hard to grasp, and most people already believe in its purpose, but just don't know that they are close to understanding and believing in it already. Try and understand the purpose of purgatory, which is to cleanse you of your sins before you go into heaven. No sin can enter heaven. Many times we forget to ask for forgiveness before we die. Purgatory cleanses you of that sin. Remember, if you are in purgatory, you are going to Heaven.

That's right. Many pople think Purgatory is a second chance for heaven. That's wrong. Once you are in Purgatory there is no chance to go to hell. For the souls in Purgatory the next step is in heaven with our Lord!

God Bless!