The Apocrypha

[synger]

Luther~he sorta wanted James out too, didn't he

*laughs* Yes, to a degree. There were a couple of books that he wasn't sure of, due to disagreements in the ECF about their authorship. James was one, Hebrews another, Jude another, and Revelation the fourth. The early church fathers had questioned the authorship and canonicity of these books, and he did too. Actually, he thought Esther was rather suspicious as well (it doesn't mention God). But he kept them all in.... all the while making his opinions well known.

He was rather good at that.

 

[Rhamiel]

I agree that it would be a gross error to trust the Jews (or any non-Christians, for that matter) on matters of doctrine or faith, since they reject Jesus Christ. But may I ask: why, then, does the Catholic Church give so much credence to Jewish doctrine, even going so far in the Catechism as to suggest that Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus?

Sorry if I'm going off topic. But I often am perplexed when Catholics dismiss Jewish opinions on theology, when the Catholic Church lends such opinions so much credibility.

I think the Catholic view of Jewish understanding of the OT could be sumed up as "useful but not authoritative" since they do not recognize the fact that Jesus is God and man and that He died for our sins they do not have a full view of the history of Salvation
I do not know if this is true, but some people have said that some of the reasons for the Apocrypha was removed by the Jews was that the Apocrypha was leading Jews to become Christian, now this could just be Catholic propaganda.
The Church does have a lot of respect for the Jewish people, but they lost their teaching authority when they refused to recognize Christ as Lord

 

[synger]

As for the New Testament canon, which I think may be more to what GreenMunchkin was getting at, there are a number of reasons some books didn't make it in.

Some books were known to be written by a disciple of Jesus, or a primary follower of one of the disciples. They were seen as authoritative, and they were considered canon. The majority of the New Testament canon is made up from this category of books.

Some books claimed to be written by a disciple, but contradicted information in accepted Scripture. They were seen as spurious. Most of the so-called Gnostic Gospels fall in this category.

Some books were anonymous (or they are unsure of authorship), but had solid doctrine that did not contradict Scripture. They were useful, and some were added to the canon. Romans and Hebrews are two that were included. Didache and Shepherd of Hermas are two that were not. This is the category where it was probably hardest to come to consensus. Shepherd has some great pastoral advice. Didache is amazing to read for a view of early church practices of baptism and communion. The ECFs were divided on whether they were authoritative or spurious, and so I guess the default was to leave them out.

One of the tools I tend to use when looking at the books that "almost made it" vs. the ones that ended up in the Bible on your nightstand is a chart comparing what the ECFs said about them. It's a great visual reference if you're interested in seeing what they thought, and it gives links to further info on each one.

And if you're interested in any of the documents of the early Church, I have found no greater resource online than the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

 

[ReformedChapin]

The Apostles used the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the Apocrypha. The current Jewish Canon deletes the Apocrypha. The current Jewish canon was not established until around 100AD.

The scriptures in use when Jesus lived includes the Apocrypha.

No they didn't.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Some thoughts.....


1. In the early first century among the Jews and for longer among Christians, there were PRE-Christ books 'floating around' with a lack of a consensus in support. The Jews "settled" this in 90 AD at Jamnia, SOME Christian denominations "settled this" at some point (the RCC at the Council of Trent in the 16th century), some never have - at least officially.


2. The OO has one totally unique "set" of these DEUTERO canonical books. The EO has another. The CC has another. Of the 3 denominations that have - officially or simply historically - embraced some of these books, none of them agree completely on WHICH of these books.


3. Among Protestants, Anglicans have largely embraced the CC's "set" - but often with a status a tad lower than the other OT books. Lutherans until quite recently also included the CC's "set" in their tomes (Luther translated them and included them in his edition), but Lutherans tended to leave their status even less clear than the Anglicans, and unlike Anglicans, their use has largely ceased in modern Lutheranism, nonetheless, while they are not listed as "canonical" they are also not listed as "noncanonical."


4. The other "half" of Protestantism has increasingly not embraced them. SOME of these denominations have officially rejected them as non canonical but most have simply firmly embraced the 39 that all embrace and perhaps by exclusion from that list, proclaim the DEUTRO books to not be canonical. In such cases, it's more a case of not clearly embracing than it is of offically rejecting.




.

 

[Cris413]

The teaching in vid I posted is quite informative regarding the timetables and such. If anyone has watched it...I would really love to hear some feedback...I know it's long...almost an hour...but again...I love to hear the thoughts of others.

 

[Rhamiel]

thanks CJ for pointing out how complex this all is, you should pop into here more offten

 

[Simon_Templar]

The books commonly called "apocrypha" by protestants are referred to by Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans as the deuterocanon.

The term "apocryphal" means 'hidden' and in some senses is a denegrating term. In the early Church this word was used to describe false books that claimed to be secret revelations, usually of gnostic character. However, this term was not then used to describe the 'deuterocanon' or intertestamental books.

While protestants have rejected the inspiration of the deuterocanon, most still recognize them as a valuable study source.

In the early Church they were considered valid for reading in worship services, which meant that they were deemed worthy of being used for teaching at the least.


Books like the gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, were what the early church referred to as apocryphal, meaning hidden in a derogatory sense. They were false books which claimed to have secret knowledge and revelation. They were never accepted by the Church which is why they became "lost" in the first place. These types of books were written by various gnostic sects which were founded on claims of having received secret knowlede etc etc.

 

[Simon_Templar]

No they didn't.

actually they did. The "apocryphal" intertestamental books were included in the septuagint. Secundulus is correct that the Jews didn't make a definitive statement excluding those books until 90AD when they attempted to reconstitute the sanhedrin.

Frankly, considering the same council also denounced and condemned Christians, I don't find their rulings to be particularly credible.

 

[ReformedChapin]

actually they did. The "apocryphal" intertestamental books were included in the septuagint. Secundulus is correct that the Jews didn't make a definitive statement excluding those books until 90AD when they attempted to reconstitute the sanhedrin.

Frankly, considering the same council also denounced and condemned Christians, I don't find their rulings to be particularly credible.

source?

proof..

According to Congar and the New Catholic Encylopedia the first infallible decision on the authoritative declaration of the canon, from a Roman Catholic perspective, was the Council of Trent, not Hippo and Carthage. The English tanslator of the Council of Trent, H.J. Schroeder, O.P., wrote:

The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures.95
​

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the reason the canon was not definitively settled for the Church until the Council of Trent is that the issue remained unclear in the centuries subsequent to Jerome; meaning that many leading theologians, cardinals and bishops did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical. This brings us to a consideration of our third major section, the history of the canon from Jerome to the Reformation.

source: http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html

The perspective of the Glossa ordinaria is reflected in the views of the most influential theologians of the Church throughout the Middle Ages. They separated the Apocrypha from the canon, consistently citing the Hebrew canon and Jerome as authorities. Bruce Metzger affirms this reality:

Subsequent to Jerome's time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon.127
​

We have already noted the comments of Anastasius of Antioch, Leontius of Byzantium, Nicephorus of Constantinople, John of Damascus and the Trullan Council in the East. The Western theologians documented in the remainder of this chapter span the intervening centuries from Jerome to the Reformation and are representative of their respective ages.

source:http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The canonical Scriptures are God's inspired revelation to man. This is the testimony of the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, they alone are authoritative in all matters of faith. Rome claims that the Apocrypha should be considered a part of the Old Testament canon as inspired revelation because the Jews did not have a closed canon and this has been the overall view of the Church from the very beginning of the Church age. But Rome's claims for the canon cannot be supported historically. The survey of the historical evidence can be summed up in the following points:
1. The Jews who were entrusted with the inspired Scriptures did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical.
2. Jesus, in particular, did not quote from the Apocryphal books and he stated that the canonical Scriptures were comprised of the three fold division of the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.
3. Many of the early Church fathers followed the Jewish canon in rejecting the Apocrypha from canonical status.
4. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial Councils which did not have the authority to establish the canon for the Church as a whole.
5. The book of Septuagint I Esdras which was decreed by Hippo and Carthage to be canonical was laterrejected by the Council of Trent.
6. The majority view of the leading theologians from the fifth century up to the time of the Reformation followed Jerome in denying the Apocrypha full canoniocal status.
7. Gregory the Great, as the bishop of Rome, taught that the Apocrypha was not canonical.
8. The official biblical commentary of the middle ages used for the training of all theologians taught that the Apocrypha, while useful for reading and edification, was notconsidered canonical and had no authority for establishing points of doctrine.
9. It was not until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century that the canon was officially and authoritatively established for the Roman Catholic Church.
10. The internal discrepancies which abound in certain books of the Apocrypha disqualify it as truly inspired and canonical.
The historical facts demonstrate that Rome's claims for the Apocrypha are false. They provide convincing evidence that her decrees on the canon, rather than affirming the universal practice of the Church through the ages, were, in fact, given in contradiction to the practice of both the Jews and the majority view of the Christian Church throughout both the patristic and middle ages

.
http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphaconclusion.html

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

No they didn't.

Yes, they were. You don't seem to understand the history of canon in the jewish and Christian traditions.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

source?

proof..



source: http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html




source:http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

.
http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphaconclusion.html

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.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

uh no, those books were added after the reformation to give the authority more to the RCC

the OT cannon in the protestant bible has been used by jews for years

Where are you getting your information? That is completely wrong. Those books were not added during the Reformation. That is why the Coptics and Orthodox use them.

They were dropped from within Christianity during the Reformation by the Reformationists. Please, please do some seriously scholarly research.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

the early church accepted the same cannon we have now

Again, simply not true.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The Apocrypha contradicts not only the Bible but itself.

Such as?

There are historical, geographical and chronological errors in it. None of the authors claim inspiration or divine authority.

Such as?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I agree that it would be a gross error to trust the Jews (or any non-Christians, for that matter) on matters of doctrine or faith, since they reject Jesus Christ. But may I ask: why, then, does the Catholic Church give so much credence to Jewish doctrine, even going so far in the Catechism as to suggest that Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus?

Sorry if I'm going off topic. But I often am perplexed when Catholics dismiss Jewish opinions on theology, when the Catholic Church lends such opinions so much credibility.

That is not exactly what the Catechism teaches.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

As to doctrines, there are only two RC doctrines that I can think of that come from the Apocrypha -- purgatory, and prayer to saints. The idea of purgatory is a late one, theologically speaking, and didn't really develop until the 12th century or so.

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.

 

[Rhamiel]

can you provide an academic source that shows that the early Church used the deutercannon?
(i sure hope you can because I got nothing!)

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

can you provide an academic source that shows that the early Church used the deutercannon?
(i sure hope you can because I got nothing!)

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

 

[Tonks]

And if you're interested in any of the documents of the early Church, I have found no greater resource online than the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

I definitely second CCEL...that place is great!

I'll let others tilt at windmills when it comes to ignorance of the Septuagint.