The Apocrypha

[MrJim]

How early? I mean, you can see in Acts the apostles quoting the Septuagint and not the hebrew bible.

Hey SA, glad to see ya back around-hope your studies are going well!

 

[synger]

I am going to have to correct you here because this is a common problem I see in people understanding Catholicism.

Doctrines do not develop. It is an imposibility. Doctrines are declared based on apostolic teaching. To say that doctrines 'develop' is suggesting that God is continuing to make public revelations to the Church. Nothing can be believed that wasn't taught by the apostles.

Ah, perhaps I was unclear... the doctrine is not really spoken of as such, or discussed much, until the Middle Ages.

I firmly believe that doctrines are defined and discussed as time goes on, and the catalyst is usually questions and challenges. For instance, we don't hear much about the doctrine of the Trinity until the followers of Arius began teaching that Jesus and God the Father were not of the same substance, and that there had been a time when the Christ had not existed. In response to the challenge of Arianism, the Church discussed and developed the language we now use to describe the mystery of the Trinity. The Trinity itself was not new... but the discussion was.

 

[arunma]

That is not exactly what the Catechism teaches.

The Catechism says this in regards to Judaism:

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,"the first to hear the Word of God."The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ","for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
​

The Catechism quotes some Scripture out of context (they quote from Romans 9:5, yet the next verse says that not all Jews are saved), and then draw a grossly inaccurate conclusion. The Catechism basically says that Jews are waiting for a Messiah they do not know, whereas Christians are waiting for a Messiah that we do know. This conveniently glosses over the fact that when Christ Jesus returns, he will be returning to kill everyone who doesn't know him, and condemn them to hell (2 Thessalonians 1:8). Jews who reject Jesus won't have the opportunity to ask the Messiah to confirm his identity!

I've had many discussions with Jews about the Catholic Church. Jews typically trust the Catholic Church, because it does not try to evangelize them. What sort of a church withholds the Gospel from unbelievers condemned to hell? I have also spoken with many Catholics about this issue. Apparently within Catholic academia, there is a culture of reverence towards Jewish philosophy and theology. I'm not sure why Christians would reverence philosophies which hold that our Lord Jesus Christ was a blasphemer. But of all Catholic doctrines, I hold their tendancy towards universalism to be the most severely disturbing.

Again, simply not true. (that
the early church accepted the same cannon we have now)

Actually, he was correct. See the 39th Festal Letter of St. Athanasius from 367 AD. In it, he cites all of the books of the current Protestant canon, except that he places Baruch in the canon and Esther in the apocrypha. He regarded the apocryphal writings as not part of the canon, but useful for instruction nonetheless. Here's the appropriate section of the text:

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/festal.stm

 

[WannaWitness]

A Christian relative of mine (who is now deceased) used to study different kinds of Bibles, and gave me a New English Bible which contained the Apocrypha. I asked a Pentecostal pastor once if reading the Apocrypha was okay, and he said it was as long as it's read as a group of regular stories and not to be taken as inspired Scripture, and I am inclined to agree with him.

 

[CADude12]

My understanding was that the apocrypha was contained in the Septuagint, and translated to the Latin by Jerome, thus including it in the Catholic Bibles. But the Reformers used the Hebrew Bible, which did not recognize these books as inspired Scripture. Though edifying, it was not the Word of God (as they saw it). This may be a bit simplistic, but I think that's what I recall.

The NT apocrypha, on the other hand, often as a Gnostic, that is heretical origin, and was rejected by the early Church because these books lacked any direct evidence of being associated with the Apostles. The church recognized them as being fallacious.

Perhaps someone who knows theology more can elaborate and correct .....

 

[ReformedChapin]

I seriously hope you aren't getting your information on biblical history from a site like that. The articles are merely rhetoric, completely without reference or academic merit.

Nice way of countering my argument dismissing the objections without actually addressing the point.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Again, simply not true.

again show evidence for your side other than the RCC said so

 

[Simon_Templar]

source?

proof..

You've given a source... but not proof. It is a source of supposition and assertion, and as such it is not much different than if you were simply to say it yourself. The fact that some other person on the internet agrees with you, doesn't constitute a "credible" source. Further, you insistance on not allowing a Catholic source is dishonest. If you assume that all Catholic sources are biased, then we should also assume that all protestant sources are biased and therefore not allowable. That would leave either Eastern, or Oriental Orthodox sources.

In the first quote you listed the website says that the Catholic canon wasn't finalized until Trent after the reformation. Thats true... but its also largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The historical fact that the 'apocryphal' texts were included in the septuagint translation is easily verifiable. In fact I've never met or heard of anyone who denied it.

The facts about the 'apocryphal' texts in the early Church are also readily available if you simply go read the writings of the Church fathers themselves.

For example, The assertion that the Catholic canon was not finalized until Trent, and specifically mentioning that it was not finalized at Hippo is basically just a poor attempt to avoid the fact that the synod at Hippo specifically lists all the 'apocryphal' books as part of the body of scripture received from the preceeding generations of the Church.
The historical fact is that the entire Roman Canon as it exists today was set forth at Hippo in 393 as accepted and as having been handed down by pre-existing Church tradition, which is listed specifically as the reason they were to be accepted.

Hippo, however, was a regional synod, not a general Church council and as such it didn't have the authority to decree a finalized canon for the entire Church. Also, the synod did not deal specifically with the question of inspiration, but rather authority. The conclusion of the council was not specifically that all the books were inspired, but rather that all were authoritative and all were allowed to be used in liturgical reading and teaching the Church. No general (ie church wide) council until Trent (obviously only Church wide in the Roman Church) dealt with mandating a canon and specifically with the issue of inspiration. Also Hippo didn't pronounce an anathema (if memory serves) against people who didn't use the books in question. It was concerned with setting forth which books were allowed, not which were required.

This is not to say there wasn't debate in the early Church over the books. There certainly was. There were some books such as Shephard of Hermas which some people thought should be included, but others disagreed, eventually consensus was that it should not be regarded as authoritative. Some questioned books like James and Revelation, but eventually consensus was that they should be allowed and regarded as authoritative.

The practice of the Church was first to leave this issue up to local synods, and also to tradition. In other words, authority was derived from the fact that certain books were traditionally accepted by all or a sufficient majority.

This is why the Orthodox Churches to this day have not made definitive authoritative statements. In their view (which is basically the ancient view) tradition itself establishes the canon. Books are proven by their traditional acceptance and the fact that they were handed down by the Church in all areas.

 

[Rhamiel]

My understanding was that the apocrypha was contained in the Septuagint, and translated to the Latin by Jerome, thus including it in the Catholic Bibles. But the Reformers used the Hebrew Bible, which did not recognize these books as inspired Scripture. Though edifying, it was not the Word of God (as they saw it). This may be a bit simplistic, but I think that's what I recall.

The NT apocrypha, on the other hand, often as a Gnostic, that is heretical origin, and was rejected by the early Church because these books lacked any direct evidence of being associated with the Apostles. The church recognized them as being fallacious.

Perhaps someone who knows theology more can elaborate and correct .....

I think you did a great job of summing it up, it is not as sinister as everybody tries to make it out to be, one group picked the greek version of the OT the other group picked the Hebrew version of the OT the one the Jews ended up picking about 100 years after Christ

 

[ReformedChapin]

You've given a source... but not proof. It is a source of supposition and assertion, and as such it is not much different than if you were simply to say it yourself. The fact that some other person on the internet agrees with you, doesn't constitute a "credible" source. Further, you insistance on not allowing a Catholic source is dishonest. If you assume that all Catholic sources are biased, then we should also assume that all protestant sources are biased and therefore not allowable. That would leave either Eastern, or Oriental Orthodox sources.

I was asking for a source from you to answer the objections posted on the website.

In the first quote you listed the website says that the Catholic canon wasn't finalized until Trent after the reformation. Thats true... but its also largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The historical fact that the 'apocryphal' texts were included in the septuagint translation is easily verifiable. In fact I've never met or heard of anyone who denied it.

How about you show some quotes or sources from SOMEWHERE so I can atleast see youtr side of the argument.

The facts about the 'apocryphal' texts in the early Church are also readily available if you simply go read the writings of the Church fathers themselves.

Okay...like whom? Augustine?

For example, The assertion that the Catholic canon was not finalized until Trent, and specifically mentioning that it was not finalized at Hippo is basically just a poor attempt to avoid the fact that the synod at Hippo specifically lists all the 'apocryphal' books as part of the body of scripture received from the preceeding generations of the Church.
The historical fact is that the entire Roman Canon as it exists today was set forth at Hippo in 393 as accepted and as having been handed down by pre-existing Church tradition, which is listed specifically as the reason they were to be accepted.

Source?

Hippo, however, was a regional synod, not a general Church council and as such it didn't have the authority to decree a finalized canon for the entire Church. Also, the synod did not deal specifically with the question of inspiration, but rather authority. The conclusion of the council was not specifically that all the books were inspired, but rather that all were authoritative and all were allowed to be used in liturgical reading and teaching the Church. No general (ie church wide) council until Trent (obviously only Church wide in the Roman Church) dealt with mandating a canon and specifically with the issue of inspiration. Also Hippo didn't pronounce an anathema (if memory serves) against people who didn't use the books in question. It was concerned with setting forth which books were allowed, not which were required.

Okay that still doesn't affirm the authority of the RCC cannon before trent. I'm glad we got that far. So essentially what you are saying that the bible was pretty much used as a subjective notion that the CHURCH could pull in and out of their pants. Makes sense why the reformation happened.

This is not to say there wasn't debate in the early Church over the books. There certainly was. There were some books such as Shephard of Hermas which some people thought should be included, but others disagreed, eventually consensus was that it should not be regarded as authoritative. Some questioned books like James and Revelation, but eventually consensus was that they should be allowed and regarded as authoritative.

But James and Revelation was finally accepted unlike the dueterconnon.

The practice of the Church was first to leave this issue up to local synods, and also to tradition. In other words, authority was derived from the fact that certain books were traditionally accepted by all or a sufficient majority.

Did that include the duterconnon?

This is why the Orthodox Churches to this day have not made definitive authoritative statements. In their view (which is basically the ancient view) tradition itself establishes the canon. Books are proven by their traditional acceptance and the fact that they were handed down by the Church in all areas.

Yes in the error of holy tradition, Gotcha.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Ok, sources

The following source uses a quote from a document from 419 AD. This document was a compilation of canons from the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The text portion quoted which lists the accepted canon is from the Council of Carthage in 397. It is generally believed that the canon listed there was originally stated in Hippo 4 years earlier... but either way you have it here in 397 AD.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html


From the same site, here is a writing from Athanasius where he sets forth the canon as he sees it in around 367 AD

http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

You will note that Athanasius does not include Esther, but does include Baruch. He also lists most of the 'apocryphal' texts as not canonical, but handed down by the Church before his day to be read for instruction.

Someone spoke ealier about Jerome. Jerome was actually one of the Early Church writers who did not include the 'apocryphal' books as part of the Canon. He in fact did not include them in his vulgate translation and they were actually added after he died.

As for the septuagint and what it contained (as well as its being a primary source for most of the new testament quotes from the OT) there is this site.

http://www.septuagint.net/