The Apocrypha.

[MrPolo]

I don't know of any prophecy in the Aypochryha.

I think Wisdom 2:17-20 (especially v.18) is fulfilled in Matthew 27:41-43.

Wisdom 2:17-20 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

Matthew 27:41-43 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, `I am the Son of God.'" ​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Since this post made reference to the Apocrypha, I thought I would post it here......

The Jewish "church" indeed carries no "authority" over Christians because they reject the new covenant. Now, I do find a few errors in your post.

1. The church whether Jewish or Christian has no "authority" over scripture but is the servant and minister of scripture. God is the cause of scripture and the church is the mode of scripture. The Jewish church nor the Christian church caused the scriptures to be written since neither can claim to be bigger that its cause.

2. The Jewish "church" relegated the written scripture to being co-authority to oral Torah which caused its demise.

3. The books of the Apocrypha (Old Testament) were rejected by the Jews as being infallible. Likewise, most of the early ECF's like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, etc. did not support them as canonical.

4. The first council to accept the apocrypha as canonical was the council of Rome in 382ad. This was not an ecumenical council. The only other councils to accept the apocripha during the early church were only local councils with no ecumenical force. Basically, no canonical list or council pf the Christian church accepted the apocrypha as inspired for most of the first four centuries.

5. Several of the Church fathers spoke against it like the ones that I have already mentioned. Later on Jerome also spoke against it.

6. None of the apocrypal books claim to be written by a prophet including 1 Macabees which even denies it (1 Mac. 9:27).

7. None of the apocryphal books contain suprenatural confirmation like it is with the prophets that wrote the canonical books.

8. There is no predictive prophesy in any of the apocryphal books like there is in the canonical books.

9. Neither Jesus nor the new testament writters quoted from them even though they were aware of them and alluded to them (like Heb. 11:35 alludes to 2 Mac. 7 although it may be a reference to 1 Kings 17:22).

There is quite a bit more evidence pointing to the non canonicity of these books. The one good thing is that we all agree on the 27 books of the NT.

 

[Anoetos]

The Deutero-canonical books were moved for political reasons and were not "re-added" by King James for political reasons.

That's not accurate.

At the time of the Reformation there was a lot of discussion in the west as to their canonicity. It had always been an open question over which scholars were free to hold differing opinions and this was the case until Trent. Those who disputed their canonicity did not generally do so for political reasons though I will admit that the issue became politicized later.

Both the AV 1611 and Luther's translation contained them.

 

[SummaScriptura]

1. Jerome broke with tradition, proposing to depend solely upon Hebrew exemplars for the Old Testament - ca. 400 AD
2. Jerome translated a few Old Testament books for which there were only Greek exemplars because of the insistance of the the Pope
3. Jerome created fanciful paraphrases of Tobit and Judith in an evening
4. Jerome disintegrated the Book of Eshter removing the Greek portions to an appendix
5. The rest of the books for which only Greek exemplars existed were translated by others
6. 1,000 years of Western history ensued in which the Greek portions of the Old Testament were brought into question from time to time
7. Protestant reformer Luther translated the Greek portions of the O.T. and placed them in an appendix, calling them helpful but not holy writ
8. Protestant Bible publishers made editions of the Bible without the Greek books present as a cheaper alternative to the complete Bible
9. Popularity of the thinner cheaper edition of the Bible gradually led to Western Protestants believing the thinner Bible was all there was to the "Protestant Canon" (Anglicans being a notable exception to this, who nevertheless usually denigrate the Greek books of the O.T.)

The Catholic canon lacks a number of books. The Anglican Bible has 3 books not found in the Catholic Bible. The "canons" of the various Orthodox communions preserve a more auithentic picture of which books have been included in the Bible of the Church from ancient times.

Resolved:
1. There is not now, nor has there ever been one canon of scripture to which all Christendom subscribes.
2. There is no Protestant canon of scripture.

 

[Anoetos]

Actually, SS, that Jerome included them at the behest of the Pope is itself, apocryphal.

They were added from Old Latin texts by later redactors.

Read The Book: A History of the Bible by Christopher de Hamel

 

[SummaScriptura]

Actually, SS, that Jerome included them at the behest of the Pope is itself, apocryphal.

They were added from Old Latin texts by later redactors.

Read The Book: A History of the Bible by Christopher de Hamel

From Kevin Edgecomb's translations of the Vulgate prologues:

Vulgate Prologues

"BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS

"[sup]1[/sup]Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!

"I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in the [sup]3[/sup]Chaldean language into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. [sup]6[/sup]For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans [sup]9[/sup]is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words.

"[sup]12[/sup]I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy."

 

[E.C.]

That's not accurate.

At the time of the Reformation there was a lot of discussion in the west as to their canonicity. It had always been an open question over which scholars were free to hold differing opinions and this was the case until Trent. Those who disputed their canonicity did not generally do so for political reasons though I will admit that the issue became politicized later.

Both the AV 1611 and Luther's translation contained them.

They were for political, actually. Just not by those during the Reformation.

When the Church was spreading about, they used the Greek Septuagint for what we now call the Old Testament. That was because A) it has everything before Christ and thus points His direction and B) Greek was the common language at the time.

Because the Christians were using the Septuagint, the Hellenized Jews, who also used the Septuagint, were beginning to look for a way to distance themselves form the Christians. Later on, I can not recall the specifics exactly, the Jews removed the books and now we see the Masoretic Text (spelling?) enter into existence.

Luther did not choose to use the Greek Septuagint and instead chose the MT for some strange reason. It seems quite odd to me that he would prefer a text that was changed and tampered after Christ rather than the one that was in use both before Him and after Him.



I'm beginning to get some of my facts crossed. End of the quarter must be coming, so please excuse me while I feast upon some crow

 

[Anoetos]

Yes, SS< de Hamel says as much, Jerome made a start and did translate the Aramaic parts but stopped short of translating the Greek portions of the Deuteros.

 

[Anoetos]

E.C> I agree with pretty much everything you said except that Luther's reason for using the MT was "strange".

In the west at the time, Cisneros, Reuchlin and a great number of Biblical scholars were preferring it. Now, this doesn't mean that it was good or right for them to do so, all it means is that academic trends are with us always and that Luther's preference was not unique or "strange".

 

[E.C.]

E.C> I agree with pretty much everything you said except that Luther's reason for using the MT was "strange".

In the west at the time, Cisneros, Reuchlin and a great number of Biblical scholars were preferring it. Now, this doesn't mean that it was good or right for them to do so, all it means is that academic trends are with us always and that Luther's preference was not unique or "strange".

I just find it strange because it is an incomplete canon.

The Christians were using the Greek Septuagint and to this day the Orthodox Church still uses it.

I just find it strange because the Jews changed their canon after Christ and Luther adopted that changed canon as opposed to the complete canon.

 

[Anoetos]

I just find it strange because it is an incomplete canon.

The Christians were using the Greek Septuagint and to this day the Orthodox Church still uses it.

I just find it strange because the Jews changed their canon after Christ and Luther adopted that changed canon as opposed to the complete canon.

Ok, it's strange to you, I understand, but it wasn't at all strange in the west in the 16th century.

Or, more properly, scholarship at the time was in the midst of a period of pretty remarkable freshness of thought and a lot of things were getting a second look that had seemed pretty set by then.

In a certain sense the whole Reformation was an unfortunate byproduct of this.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>Because the Christians were using the Septuagint, the Hellenized Jews, who also used the Septuagint, were beginning to look for a way to distance themselves form the Christians. Later on, I can not recall the specifics exactly, the Jews removed the books and now we see the Masoretic Text (spelling?) enter into existence.

Luther did not choose to use the Greek Septuagint and instead chose the MT for some strange reason. It seems quite odd to me that he would prefer a text that was changed and tampered after Christ rather than the one that was in use both before Him and after Him.<snip>

A couple of things need to be clarified here...

Your post infers the Masoretic text tradition is post-Christian. You also seem to infer the text of the MT has been tampered with.

The "Great Isaiah Scroll" which was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, has confirmed that the Masoretic text tradition is pre-Christian. It also demonstrates the text has been preserved and not tampered with from pre-Christian times. Granted, the punctaution marks are post-Christian but the punctuation marks do not change the Hebrew words that were used.

Sometimes people make the same mistake as the "MT-only" crowd and seem to lean toward "LXX-only". The LXX text tradition was preferrred by most N.T. writers, but the MT text tradition is also often in evidence in the New Testament. The tradition handed down by the Apostles of the Lord was "both and" and not "either or" in reliance upon the MT and the LXX.

Also, Luther followed Jerome in the error of being an "MT-onlyist". The MT-only error predates Luther by a millenium.

 

[E.C.]

A couple of things need to be clarified here...

Your post infers the Masoretic text tradition is post-Christian. You also seem to infer the text of the MT has been tampered with.

It is on both accounts.

The removal of books and the cutting in half of a few (Jeremiah) is tampering. Said tampering occurred after Christianity was spreading.

The "Great Isaiah Scroll" which was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, has confirmed that the Masoretic text tradition is pre-Christian. It also demonstrates the text has been preserved and not tampered with from pre-Christian times. Granted, the punctaution marks are post-Christian but the punctuation marks do not change the Hebrew words that were used.

Sometimes people make the same mistake as the "MT-only" crowd and seem to lean toward "LXX-only". The LXX text tradition was preferrred by most N.T. writers, but the MT text tradition is also often in evidence in the New Testament. The tradition handed down by the Apostles of the Lord was "both and" and not "either or" in reliance upon the MT and the LXX.

LXX. If it was MT than everybody would have been speaking Hebrew and not Greek

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>The removal of books and the cutting in half of a few (Jeremiah) is tampering. Said tampering occurred after Christianity was spreading.<snip>

The LXX Jeremiah is missing portions that are found in the MT. The MT Jeremiah has all that the LXX Jeremiah has and more.

It has not been determined when the LXX Jeremiah became abridged but it is very likely it was abridged from the outset.

The removal of books? The Bible did not exist in bound book form until later, it seems. The lack of Hebrew copies of some books is just that, they did not exist in Hebrew, though some were lost through disuse. It does not present a problem, I feel, to have some books of the O.T. in Greeek only.

 

[Stefanus]

Hey guys. I'm a new member here, and i've got to ask yous something. Now this has been bothering me for quite some time: How reliable is the Apocrypha? Why was it removed? And what's up with all these other texts that have been found? (Dead Sea Scrolls, DSS, Latin Vulgate, and the Septuagent) What is up with these texts? Is it okay to read them? Should i read them? I understand that the catholic bible (KJVA) has the apocrypha, i'm not catholic. Please, help me out guys. Thank you.

There is a hole lot to say for and against the Apocrypha, read them with an open mind and decide for yourself.

As a general summary:

• The Jews do not accept the Apocrypha as part of their Scriptures.
• Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture, though some ascribe to them value as "good and useful reading" and "for example of life and instruction of manners."
• The Roman Catholic 'Church' in effect accepts 12 of the apocryphal books as canonical (omitting I & II Esdras and the Prayer of Manassah from the above list.) Because of this the Roman Catholic 'Church' speaks of the Apocrypha as "deutero-canonical" books, and in turn labels as apocrypha what we may term "pseudoepigraphical" books."

The Apocrypha were formally canonized by the Roman Catholic 'Church' on April 8, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent.
The Council was selective in this exercise, because it did not include II Esdras, which in its chapter 7:105 speaks against prayers for the dead!

Stefanus

 

[SummaScriptura]

There is a hole lot to say for and against the Apocrypha, read them with an open mind and decide for yourself.







As a general summary:

• The Jews do not accept the Apocrypha as part of their Scriptures.
• Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture, though some ascribe to them value as "good and useful reading" and "for example of life and instruction of manners."
• The Roman Catholic 'Church' in effect accepts 12 of the apocryphal books as canonical (omitting I & II Esdras and the Prayer of Manassah from the above list.) Because of this the Roman Catholic 'Church' speaks of the Apocrypha as "deutero-canonical" books, and in turn labels as apocrypha what we may term "pseudoepigraphical" books."

The Apocrypha were formally canonized by the Roman Catholic 'Church' on April 8, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent.
The Council was selective in this exercise, because it did not include II Esdras, which in its chapter 7:105 speaks against prayers for the dead!

Stefanus

I appreciate your comments.

They are accurate, except the RCC accepts 7 Greek O.T. books and addtions to 2 others.

I differ from you on a point of emphasis only...

I think the whole "Protestants removed books from the Bible" and/or "Catholics added to the Bible" dialectic is unhelpful in getting to the heart of the truth on this issue. I know its hard to wean ourselves off of that particular juicy tidbit of controversy we seem to love so much in the West.

It was Jerome who unilaterally took the Church in the West down an impoverished scripture trail. He broke with 400 years of Church history by tossing out the Septuagint as a legitimate source for the books of the Old Testament. It was downhill from there. He popularized the term "Apocrypha" for the books of the Greek Old Testament which he believed were of dubious credibility. He diminished their stature in the body of scripture. Luther took it to the next logical step, and the Protestant Bible societies then dumped them altogether.

For me the proper way to tell the story is the ancient communions of the faith in the East, the churches of Orthodoxy, preserve corporately the most complete record of what the Church nourished her spiritual life upon in regards to the scripture. When one takes the lists of books used by Syrian, Ethiopian and Greek Orthodoxy in total, we arrive at a more original picture of what constituted the Bible from the beginning of our Christian heritage.

I toss out Jerome with his bathwater.

P.S. I do not wish to imply I recommend tossing out the Hebrew texts of the O.T. Gimme my MT and gimme my LXX! I want all the Lord has for us!

 

[2 King]

Errors in the Apocrypha:

Read this excerpt:

Problems in the Apocrypha

When we look into the apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.

Magic:
Tobias 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."
​

Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.
The Apocrypha also teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Salvation by works:
Tobias 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."
Tobias 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."
​

We know from Scripture that alms (money or food, given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us, not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7).

Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Macabees 12:43, "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."
​

Can anyone truly except that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.

Wrong historical facts:
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."
Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."
​

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1
Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
Conclusion

Obviously the apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts, it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired of God. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition, rather than God's absolute truth.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Errors in the Apocrypha:

Read this excerpt:

Are you trying to say there are no problems with chronologies, geography, and segments with troubling implications, located in the 66 books of most Protestant Bibles?

Your logic is flawed.

"Lemme show you problem passages in those books"

I've come across entire books dedicated to tearing apart the apparent inaccuracies in the slimmer, 66-book Bible you prefer.

You should know by now there are usually answers to problems in scripture.

I will not type lengthy replies answering each objection from someone who only cared enough to copy and paste, and will likely not read my efferts posted.

However, if anyone legitimattly wants an answer to a problem passage, let me know, I will try. If anyone wants an argument against lists of pros and cons, go fly a kite.

 

[2 King]

Are you trying to say there are no problems with chronologies, geography, and segments with troubling implications, located in the 66 books of most Protestant Bibles?

Your logic is flawed.

"Lemme show you problem passages in those books"

I've come across entire books dedicated to tearing apart the apparent inaccuracies in the slimmer, 66-book Bible you prefer.

You should know by now there are usually answers to problems in scripture.

I will not type lengthy replies answering each objection from someone who only cared enough to copy and paste, and will likely not read my efferts posted.

However, if anyone legitimattly wants an answer to a problem passage, let me know, I will try. If anyone wants an argument against lists of pros and cons, go fly a kite.

Nice try friend. But the Christian Apologetics and Research team provided this. I doubt that you took years to compile a team of Christian Reasearchers etc. to prove the opposite.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Nice try friend. But the Christian Apologetics and Research team provided this. I doubt that you took years to compile a team of Christian Reasearchers etc. to prove the opposite.

Well then, you win! I recommend you continue to follow your mediators on the Christian Apologetics and Research team as you apparently do not wish to abuse your brain with too much research of your own.