The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

[BigNorsk]

. You are correct. Maccabees is mentioned in the BOC. One time.And it was called scripture. One time. Probably an oversite on Chemnitz's part since the BOC isn't inspired scripture, it could have mistakes.

I dont really care if anyone reads it or not. I've read some of it and enjoyed it also. It has already been translated into many books and languages and has been read by many. My whole point is that CPH just gets under my skin when I read their selection of material which has more leanings toward other denoms and less on confessional Lutheranism. That's what started this off for me. CPH is just a sounding board for church growth advocates, aberant theology and outside influences that are not traditional Lutheranism. Even the I picked up an older edition of "Concordia, A Lutheran Confession" edited by Paul McCain in 2006, I think. It had to be re-edited becasue of emphasis on Stephanism and advocating hypo-euroism.

I just mentioned it because you started out with the statement that the Apocrypha isn't mentioned in the BOC at all. Since you didn't know of that one, I won't pay much attention to you know wailing about one time. Truth is you don't know how many references to the Apocrypha is in the BOC but for some reason you just want to argue about it no matter what the truth is.

I don't know why you are worried about confessional Lutheranism, you just threw the quia subscription under the bus.

And Chemnitz didn't write the Apology.

 

[BoC]

I just mentioned it because you started out with the statement that the Apocrypha isn't mentioned in the BOC at all. Since you didn't know of that one, I won't pay much attention to you know wailing about one time. Truth is you don't know how many references to the Apocrypha is in the BOC but for some reason you just want to argue about it no matter what the truth is.

I don't know why you are worried about confessional Lutheranism, you just threw the quia subscription under the bus.

And Chemnitz didn't write the Apology.

A quia subscription to scripture. Sure I do. Didn't know the BOC was scripture.

BTW CHemnitz edited and compiled the BOC along with a few other people.

 

[DaRev]

A quia subscription to scripture. Sure I do. Didn't know the BOC was scripture.

Confessional Lutherans hold to a "quia subscritpion" to the Confessions because they are thoroughly Scriptural. That's what the term Confessional Lutheran means. You sound like ELCA. Care to share your synodical affiliation?

 

[Chemnitz]

BoC,

Just making sure: you do understand that no one is saying that the OT Apocrypha are canonical and inspired or even on par with the Confessional documents (since these are distillations of pure bible doctrine), right?

 

[BoC]

BoC,

Just making sure: you do understand that no one is saying that the OT Apocrypha are canonical and inspired or even on par with the Confessional documents (since these are distillations of pure bible doctrine), right?

Correct

Confessional Lutherans hold to a "quia subscritpion" to the Confessions because they are thoroughly Scriptural. That's what the term Confessional Lutheran means. You sound like ELCA. Care to share your synodical affiliation?

LCMS

 

[RadMan]

Well I should come back more often. I see BOC hasn't received a warm welcome. Hello BOC

 

[BoC]

Thanks for the welcome Radman. I've dug into old posts on here and noticed that you bring up subjects that no one else is willing to address. Deniability seems to run high in the Lutheran forum here.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

BoC,

Just making sure: you do understand that no one is saying that the OT Apocrypha are canonical and inspired or even on par with the Confessional documents (since these are distillations of pure bible doctrine), right?

Interesting conversation!

Chemnitz (and whoever), isnt possible for the Apocryphal books to be inspired yet not canonical at the same time??



JTM

 

[Chemnitz]

I tend to think of inspired meaning authoritative and therefore the Word of God. Being canonical is more a matter of ecclesial consideration, so, yes, it's possible a distinction could be made but it seems to me that this would apply more to potential, unknown texts rather than to ones we know of. The reason I think this is because it also seems to me that the criteria for inclusion in the canon is, or should be, at the very least a consented affirmation of a given text's divine authorship (i.e. inspiration), and we can only do that with texts we know of.

All of which begs the questions:

1. What are the criteria for canonicity, how are they arrived at and who does it, and

2. How would we deal with the arrival of a hitherto unknown text which is satisfactorily demonstrated to be of, let's say, Pauline (or any apostolic) authorship?

 

[BigNorsk]

1. Largely that queston is answered by nothing more complicated than what do people find in their bible.

2. Wouldn't be authoritative scripture, it wasn't accepted by such and disseminated in the church.

 

[Chemnitz]

1. Largely that queston is answered by nothing more complicated than what do people find in their bible.

2. Wouldn't be authoritative scripture, it wasn't accepted by such and disseminated in the church.

1. But how did they get there? Magic?

2. So, if we find the letter of Paul to the Laodiceans and it is reasonably verified to have been of apostolic authorship, it's categorically uninspired because we just found it? (I can actually sort of buy this, it seems to me that the constant testimony of the church is essential for establishing the canonicity of the text [and that will probably tell you how I answer the first question as well]).

 

[DaRev]

So, if we find the letter of Paul to the Laodiceans and it is reasonably verified to have been of apostolic authorship, it's categorically uninspired because we just found it? (I can actually sort of buy this, it seems to me that the constant testimony of the church is essential for establishing the canonicity of the text [and that will probably tell you how I answer the first question as well]).

I doubt that the Holy Spirit would have allowed an inspired text to lie unknown for 2000+ years.

 

[Chemnitz]

I doubt that the Holy Spirit would have allowed an inspired text to lie unknown for 2000+ years.

I guess...

 

[SummaScriptura]

I am enjoying listening in on this thread. It gives me some insight to the varieties of conservative Lutheran thought on this issue. It is not altogether too unlike the dialog I have seen between Anglicans on this question, by the way.

 

[Tangible]

Lutheran watching is a rather bizarre past-time, SS.

 

[BigNorsk]

1. But how did they get there? Magic?

2. So, if we find the letter of Paul to the Laodiceans and it is reasonably verified to have been of apostolic authorship, it's categorically uninspired because we just found it? (I can actually sort of buy this, it seems to me that the constant testimony of the church is essential for establishing the canonicity of the text [and that will probably tell you how I answer the first question as well]).

1. That's a different question. The testimony of history though is pretty clear, the majority of people have simply taken what they find and accept that. Once the Septuagint got fairly standardized that was it for the Orthodox. Of course they don't treat the books the same, just insist on using the term scripture for them all.

Then there's the Catholics, what was in the Vulgate was taken as scripture, of course they don't use them all the same, but they often think they do.

Luther didn't innovate. Still had the books there. Followed one of the Latin translations in putting those not authoritative scripture in a separate section. Other bibles labelled them as nonscripture.

Then there is the Baptists, they took the Scofield Bible just as it was as scripture, even the footnotes. (This for SS's benefit)

Most people today follow that long lasting church tradition of accepting what they find as scripture and knowing that absolutely proves others are wrong.

2. A book being not available until know would be like God could not preserve his scripture. Paul for instance certainly wrote more than what we have, but whatever it was it was not widely accepted and circulated as scripture. Maybe they had trouble understanding. two small fish, barley bread, wine....

Of course the whole question is academic, I can't think of anything that would absolutely prove Pauline authorship.

 

[Nemo Neem]

I never understood why other Protestant denominations never used the Apocrypha. All I know is that Episcopalians use it for edification. I have a copy at home, but I only read it for history stuff, or for wisdom. I think it's a great piece of literature, though.

 

[RadMan]

If one could prove that Jesus or a New Testamest writer did use one of the apocrypha, this alone would not prove that they regarded the text as sacred scripture or as canonical. After all, Acts 17:28 has Paul quoting the Greek poet Aratus, and no one regards Aratus as canonical.



.

 

[BigNorsk]

I never understood why other Protestant denominations never used the Apocrypha. All I know is that Episcopalians use it for edification. I have a copy at home, but I only read it for history stuff, or for wisdom. I think it's a great piece of literature, though.

I realize people might find this offensive but I do believe the nonuse or outright antagonism towards the Apocrypha by many comes down to antiCatholicism and a lack of historical knowledge. Basically, a folk religion in and of itself where people cut themselves off from the historical church and then conclude after a time that the historical church must be just like they are. Often they believe it very strongly, especially when they grew up in such a group.

 

[Tangible]

I realize people might find this offensive but I do believe the nonuse or outright antagonism towards the Apocrypha by many comes down to antiCatholicism and a lack of historical knowledge. Basically, a folk religion in and of itself where people cut themselves off from the historical church and then conclude after a time that the historical church must be just like they are. Often they believe it very strongly, especially when they grew up in such a group.

This describes my Baptist upbringing to a tee.