The Apocrypha

[PookySmiley]

Who here has read the Apocrypha? Should it be included in scripture?

 

[PastorMikeJ]

I have read OT ones...and Enoch... Should they be included?? I don't know..but I have them on my list of questions to ask God when I get to heaven....

I really enjoyed reading them...they are a great history of the period...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I've read most of them, but not all.
Some are very weird.
Some, like 1 and 2 Maccabees are helpful, at least from a history point of view.


Whether they should or should not be considered canonical seems to be an issue to which there is not universal consensus. I view them in exactly that light. In fact, the RCC and EO don't even agree on exactly what they are.


In my 5 years or so active in the RCC, I can probably count on one hand how many times any of them were even referred to (probably with fingers left over). They came up on the lectionary now and then, but I never heard a sermon or Bible study or anything else from them. They seem to "be there" but that's about it. I don't think any theology is derived from them, except there is a single verse (in Maccabees, I think) that's used for Purgatory, but then that's not Dogma and it's clearly from Tradition and not Scripture anyway.


And anyway, if after 2000 years a solid consensus hasn't been reached on these (not even in the RCC/EO), I'm not holding my breath. People can consider them as their faith directs - I have no problem either way.


It all seems amazingly moot to me.


MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[icxn]

Wisdom of Solomon is great:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbi...xts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

Wisdom of Sirach is very useful:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbi...xts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

also Maccabees 4:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbi...xts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

 

[GraceInHim]

I have read OT ones...and Enoch... Should they be included?? I don't know..but I have them on my list of questions to ask God when I get to heaven....

I really enjoyed reading them...they are a great history of the period...

Hi Mike

I did not know this until recently, but the gospels of Nicodemeus says how Jesus, during the time after his death went to death to defeat death and released all those who were there, like Isiaah, Daniel and others in the Bible.

Then remember some preachers said this, and I use to ask myself, how do they know if it is not in the Bible?

 

[Oblio]

If we refer to the OT books in question as the Deuterocanon (which is less offensive to EO/RC/Anglican etc. who consider them Scripture), and the NT era books as Apocrypha, there may be less confusion.

 

[BBAS 64]

Who here has read the Apocrypha? Should it be included in scripture?

Good Day, PookySmiley

I have read some of them, I am on the same line as Jerome and others on this issue.

Jerome

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

Some of them are very weird... I wonder how "bad" the book of Judith was before Jerome hacked the errors out.

THE PREFACE OF JEROME ON THE BOOK OF JUDITH

Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work , translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Good Day, PookySmiley

I have read some of them, I am on the same line as Jerome and others on this issue.

Jerome

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

Some of them are very weird... I wonder how "bad" the book of Judith was before Jerome hacked the errors out.

THE PREFACE OF JEROME ON THE BOOK OF JUDITH

Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work , translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

Peace to u,

Bill

Thank you.
That's VERY helpful and interesting.

I'm truely impressed by the people here at CF; I learn something every time I sign on.

Thank you, Bill!



.

 

[Oblio]

Be aware that the term canonical was often used by the ECFs to refer to that which is to be Liturgically read.

 

[Oblio]

Who here has read the Apocrypha? Should it be included in scripture?

I have read much of the Deuterocanon.
It is Holy Scripture.

 

[PaladinValer]

The "Apocrypha" in terms of those books wrongfully taken out by Protestants is indeed Scripture. Each of the five ancient patriarchies of the Church ended up accepting them as fully Canonical. That makes them fully Ecumenical in acceptance by the Church. These books are called the Deuterocanon.

The true OT Apocrypha, which includes such books like Enoch, Jubilees, 2 (3 in the Greek) Esdras, 4 Maccabees, the Book of Odes, and the Psalms of Solomon, are useful, but are not Scripture. That doesn't mean everything they contain are wrong, but they just were not accepted as Scripture.

There also includes the NT Apocrypha, which includes such works like the Protoevangelicum of St. James and the Didache. Again, these are not Scripture either, but that doesn't mean they are not true.

 

[sanct1fym3]

I vote no, thay are inconsistent in several places with existing "canonized" bible, and they actually have some faulty history involved, if we were to cannonize them into the bible it would create an incosistency in God's holy text, and when we look at the purpose the RCC "canonized" them it was because they had stuff in them that refuted Martin Luther. And it wasn't until this era (of Luther) that they were even considered. If you study early church cannonization it would seem more clear that these books were not considered to be inspired and as such considered possible to dirsupt the analogy of faith, I'm not trying to upset anyone, if you like them by all means read them, and if you can draw application, then please do so, but with a guarded heart since there are historical contradictions (in the books and to the bible) And i agree that oblio's term for the ECF's definitions, but that is only one of the many meanings for the word, and i would have to study whaether that is the sole meaning in this instance.

 

[PaladinValer]

I vote no, thay are inconsistent in several places with existing "canonized" bible,

According to your interpretation, right?

and they actually have some faulty history involved,[/qupte]

Much of the OT is historically inaccurate. As a historian, I have not a problem stating that with authority.

if we were to cannonize them into the bible it would create an incosistency in God's holy text,

How little power you allow God.

and when we look at the purpose the RCC "canonized" them it was because they had stuff in them that refuted Martin Luther.

1. Please explain then why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have always accepted the Deuterocanon?
2. Please tell me why the 4th century councils in Hippo and Rome accepted the Deuterocanon as Scripture? To say that the Vatican Church didn't canonize the Deuterocanon until Trent is historically inaccurate.

And it wasn't until this era (of Luther) that they were even considered.

Again, this is historically inaccurate. Part of the Marcion heresy dealt with the Canon of Scripture. His list was the first ever attempt to settle on a set number of books. It took the Church roughly another 200 years to finally come to a conclusion.

If you study early church cannonization it would seem more clear that these books were not considered to be inspired and as such considered possible to dirsupt the analogy of faith,

I'm a historian. I know specifically otherwise.

 

[Polycarp1]

I really have to take major issue with the Vatican over the Deuterocanon, but it's not the usual problem. I refer to the apparent secret decision of the Council of Trent to hide away from secular knowledge the means of building the time machines that they used to go back and dump upon the poor Orthodox and Copts of 1300 years previous the books that they "added" to the Bible after the Reformation.

 

[Protestante]

Paladin, you said there were OT apocrypha that are scriptural and taken out of the bible by Protestants. Could you please tell me which ones they were?

(I think my signature, when I get one, will be a disclaimer because I feel the need to write the fact that "I don't mean any offense by asking what I've asked, mere curiousity" so often its annoying)

 

[Polycarp1]

The Anglican Communion regards the Deuterocanon as Scripture, but officially not as grounds for founding a statement of doctrine. The official list of what's included in the Proterocanon Old Testament and the Deuterocanon, from the Articles of Religion, is as follows:

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, [Ezra]


The Second Book of Esdras, [Nehemiah]


The Book of Esther,

The Book of Job,

The Psalms,

The Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes or Preacher,

Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,

Four Prophets the greater, [Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel]


Twelve Prophets the less. [Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi]


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 Deuterocanon or "Apocrypha"]


The Third Book of Esdras, [I Esdras]*


The Fourth Book of Esdras, [II Esdras]*


The Book of Tobias,

The Book of Judith,

The rest of the Book of Esther,

The Book of Wisdom, [Wisdom of Solomon]


Jesus the Son of Sirach, [Ecclesiasticus, 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.

Notes:

Bracketed material is added to the text by me for clarification of which books are meant.

Books marked with a single asterisk are in the Septuagint, the Orthodox and Anglican canons but not in the Roman Catholic canon.

Books marked with a double asterisk are pieces of the Greek version of Daniel not found in the Hebrew version, and separated out in the KJV into separate Apocryphal books.

 

[GraceInHim]

thanks Polycarp

 

[graysparrow]

I have read OT ones...and Enoch... Should they be included?? I don't know..but I have them on my list of questions to ask God when I get to heaven....

I really enjoyed reading them...they are a great history of the period...

 

[Maximus]

The Deuterocanonical Books were part of the Septuagint Old Testament, which was the Old Testament of the early Church and of most 1st-century Jews. When the writers of the New Testament quoted the Old Testament, they quoted the Septuagint 85% of the time. When our Lord Jesus Christ quoted the Old Testament, as reported in the Gospels, He quoted the Septuagint.

When the various books that now make up our Bible were assembled together in one volume as the result of several Church councils, beginning with the Synod of Rome in 382, and culminating with councils of Carthage and Hippo in 397 and 419, the Septuagint was chosen as the genuine, inspired version of the Old Testament.

Even early Protestant Bibles, such as the original 1611 King James, included the Deuterocanonical Books.

The Septuagint Old Testament had been accepted and in use by Jews from its inception in the 2nd century B.C. until a council of anti-Christian rabbis met in A.D. 90 at Jamnia (Javneh) and decided to reject as canonical any books without Hebrew originals or not written in the Holy Land. They did not, however, reject the Deuterocanon outright, retaining its use for historical purposes (for one thing, no Deuterocanon, no Hanukkah). That same council of Jamnia also invoked curses on Christ and His followers, the Christians, and condemned Christian writings, including those which would later become the New Testament.

Some Protestants, upon finding out that the Jews of the 16th century had a slightly different OT canon from that of the Catholic Church, wrongly accused the latter of adding books to the Old Testament, an anachronistic and ahistorical charge.

They decided on that basis to go with the Jewish OT text of the medieval rabbis known as the Masoretes, which comprised the same books that were chosen by the anti-Christian rabbis at Jamnia.

This was also a handy thing to do, since certain passages of the Deuterocanon are very embarrassing and inconvenient to the Protestant criticism of the Catholic Church.

The Protestants had no real authority to remove the Deuterocanon from the Bible. It can hardly be argued that the Jewish Council of Jamnia was guided by the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is not in the business of condemning Christ and Christians and calling down curses upon them the way the rabbis at Jamnia did.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura likewise provides no authority for removing the Deuterocanon from the Bible, since the Bible itself nowhere says which books are to be included in its canon.

 

[BigNorsk]

Scripture tells us the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Now I can understand the church claiming authority to recogize scripture that was written after the church came into existence. So I would see it as proper for the church to decide which books should be included in the New Testament.

What I don't recognize the church's authority extending to is to the time before the church even existed. God's people at that time would have the authority to recognize scripture. That would not include either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches because they did not exist. They were not God's people yet.

The Apochrypha were written during a time when there was no prophet for God to speak through. How does a non-prophet write scripture? The Jews recognized that, they excluded the Apochrypha from scripture under the authority they had to do so.

That would be why we end up with the Hebrew canon for Old Testament scripture and the generally recognized New Testament canon.

It is not the church's place to go back and second guess the Hebrews. It is not in a position to judge.

Marv