The apocrypha

[Iosias]

Can you explain the apocrypha to me? What it is, where it came from something along these lines.

 

[DanielRB]

Can you explain the apocrypha to me? What it is, where it came from something along these lines.

The term "apocrypha" means "hidden". This term is used in a variety of ways, but the most common collection of books to which this refers are the books that the protestant reformation does not generally recognize as authoritative or even inspired, but the Catholic counter-reformation included in their Old Testament canon. Catholics refer to these books as "deuterocanonical" rather than "apocrypha." The Orthodox Church also recognizes them as canonical, with some additional books. Other Churchs (for example, the Ethiopic Church) have a canon that includes these books and several others.

Generally, the protestants have accepted the Hebrew definition of the canon and rejected these books. These books were normally considered part of the Septuigant, which was generally the Bible of the early Church, and thus often used in the life of the Church before any formal definition of canon was made.

From memory, here are the books of 'the apocrypha' (I may forget some):

1 & 2 Maccabees (sometimes 3 & 4 Maccabees also included, but not canonical according to the Catholics)
1 & 2 Esdras (2 Esdras is not canonical according to Catholics)
Wisdom of Solomon
Letter of Jeremiah
Sirach
Tobit
Judith
The Prayer of Manaseh
Additions to Daniel (Bel and the Dragon, The Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna)
Additions to Esther
Psalm 151

Some of the books seem very ahistorical (such as Judith). Others, like 1 Maccabees, can help one understand some of the history of the Jews between the Testaments.

Are they the Word of God? Depends on who you ask.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[eightfoot514]

Thank you, Daniel, for your post. It is very honest and non-biased.

I wrote a history and explanation of the "Apocrypha" about a year ago. I'm glad it can finally come in handy. Unfortunately, some of it contains direct quotations from other Catholic authors, and I don't remember which ones they were. So as a disclaimer, I do not take credit for about 25% of this. Some of the language is somewhat strong, but it is not intended to be offensive. This is simply how I explain the deuterocanonicals from a Catholic standpoint. (Also, no offense is meant by the term "Protestant." Some people see the word as being derrogatory in some instances, but this is not my intention by any means). Just sort of a disclaimer, hehe.

Seventy-three books make up the bible. All the books of the Old Testament make up the Septuagint, which was the sacred scripture Jesus and His Apostles read and used. The Church has always accepted the books of the Septuagint and officially canonized them along with the books of the New Testament in the year 397. 1500 years after the Church started, Martin Luther rejected seven books of the bible because they conflicted with his personal beliefs. The books included Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. These books are called the deuterocanonicals. Luther even attempted to remove the books James, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews from the New Testament to suit his personal doctrine. He wrote in 1542 that he had been accustomed to interpreting the New Testament book James according the rest of scripture, but since some did not accept his interpretation of this passage, he simply said, “Then I shall make rubble of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove…The epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical." However, it became clear that Luther would lose all credibility if he threw out New Testament books as well.

Luther claimed that his authority in rejecting seven of the Old Testament books came from Pharisaical Jewish leaders who stopped using the seven books around the year 100 A.D. Oddly, Luther failed to recognize that this same council of Jewish elders also rejected Jesus and the entire New Testament. Should Luther really be listening to the Pharisees after Jesus' death and resurrection?

–Mark 3:6 – Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
–Matthew 23:13 – Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
–Matthew 16:6, 12 – "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Why would Jewish leaders have authority to throw out sacred scripture, especially after Christ? It is peculiar that Protestants reject the including of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants rely on for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. Certain books, such as the gospels, Acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However, a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals." While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals.

The canons of the New Testament and Old Testament were determined by Church authority in the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the books were reaffirmed in the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.). The New Testament makes numerous references to the deuterocanonicals. For example, Hebrews 11:35 recalls the Old Testament story where even women were being tortured for their faith, which is referring to 2 Maccabees 7:1.

New Testament references to the deuterocanonicals: (There are countless others)
Hebrews 12:38 --> 1 Maccabees 28-30
Luke 18:22 --> Sirach 29:11
Matthew 23:12 --> Sirach 4:18

Eric

 

[Iosias]

Thankyou both for your replies. May I ask by what authority these Councils sorted out canon and by what authority the apocrypha was rejected by some?

 

[Oblio]

May I ask by what authority these Councils sorted out canon and by what authority the apocrypha was rejected by some?

The Councils, being part of the Church and the body of Christ, carry His authority through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Those who removed the Deutercanon, being apart from the Church, much less working in a Biblical conciliar fashion, carry no such divine authority and edited the canon held for 1000 years to fit their theology.

 

[Brother Simon]

eightfoot514, I hope you don't mind but I'm going to print that explanation out for my own use when asked this question!

God Bless and Pax et Bonum!
Simon

 

[eightfoot514]

eightfoot514, I hope you don't mind but I'm going to print that explanation out for my own use when asked this question!

God Bless and Pax et Bonum!
Simon

Great! I hope it is helpful when the situation arises.

Eric

 

[eightfoot514]

May I ask by what authority these Councils sorted out canon and by what authority the apocrypha was rejected by some?

When referring to "the Church," we mean the Catholic and Orthodox Church, which are both part of the original Church. The Church, the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), is guided by the Holy Spirit to teach the fullness of the Truth.

John 16:13 – But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.

John 14:26 – The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.

The Church teaches in unity and full agreement, and its doctrine is preserved from error by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 3:15 – But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Acts 15:22 – Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

Acts 15:28 – It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us…

Titus 2:15 – Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Matthew 16:18-19 – And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:15-18 – If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 10:16 – Jesus said, "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

Revelation 2:11 – Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.


Eric

 

[Iosias]

When referring to "the Church," we mean the Catholic and Orthodox Church, which are both part of the original Church. The Church, the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), is guided by the Holy Spirit to teach the fullness of the Truth.

John 16:13 – But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.

Eric,

But could you not therefore argue that the Holy Ghost guided the Reformers to the truth in rejecting the apocrypha?

 

[Polycarp1]

This is fairly simple to deal with. The Jews recognized the Torah, the Prophets (which includes most of the historical O.T. books), and "the Writings," but did not in Bible times have a clear closed canon of what was included in "the Writings." When the Septuagint, the great translation of Scripture into Greek, was done around 250 B.C. it included the Protestant-canon Old Testament and the books that constitute "the Apocrypha" today. That collection was adopted by the early Church and constitutes the Orthodox Church's Old Testament today.

Around the time of Christ and the rest of the First Century, the Jews of Palestine adopted a more restricted canon which included only books known at that time to have been written in Hebrew (excepting short passages in Aramaic in Daniel). The Protestant Reformers adopted this more restrictive canon, relegating the other Old Testament books to "the Apocrypha."

The Catholic Church, in reaction to this, adopted most of the books of the Apocrypha as a part of the Old Testament, constituting "the Deuterocanon." The Anglican Churches see the Apocrypha as a sort of "second class Scripture" -- read as Scripture but not to be used as the basis for doctrine, as the rest of Scripture is.

 

[ufonium2]

Eric,

But could you not therefore argue that the Holy Ghost guided the Reformers to the truth in rejecting the apocrypha?

Only if you believe that the truth changed sometime between Hippo and the Reformation.

 

[Oblio]

Only if you believe that the truth changed sometime between Hippo and the Reformation.

Or that the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church for the first 1500 years of her existence.

 

[Iosias]

Only if you believe that the truth changed sometime between Hippo and the Reformation.

Were these the same councils that 'created' the Holy Bible as 66 books? Was it these councils that decided upon the authenticity of the 66 books we have today?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What a great thread...

I would like to add that during the first century when the Jews removed books from the OT, they did so because they felt the original supported Christianity.

Forgive me...

 

[Oblio]

Well put O-usa. They were in effect, the first anti-Christs.

 

[eightfoot514]

Were these the same councils that 'created' the Holy Bible as 66 books? Was it these councils that decided upon the authenticity of the 66 books we have today?

Well, I wouldn't say they created the Holy Bible. The Bible came out of the Church, and the council met to decide which books were actually inspired. And, actually there are 73 books in the Bible. A canon including only 66 books did not exist until the 1500s.

To clarify what a Church council really is, maybe you should read Acts 15, which tells of Christianity's first recorded council, the Council of Jerusalem. All of the bishops of the Church met to settle a doctrinal dispute, in this case, the question was whether or not a Christian had to be circumcised to be saved. The apostles and bishops met together to see about this matter. The Holy Spirit was guiding them, and when they reached a conclusion, Peter, the leader of the Church, got up and proclaimed the Truth.

Remember, Jesus said to Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." The succesors of Peter and the Apostles, called Bishops, are guided by the Holy Spirit to be free from error when they are gathered together in an ecumenical Church council.

Eric

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

"The Orthodox Church" does not dispute the 73... however, include were these 5 as well, giving a total of 78.

1 and 2 Esdras
The prayer of Manasseh
Psalms 151
3 Maccabees

Forgive me...

 

[BBAS 64]

What a great thread...

I would like to add that during the first century when the Jews removed books from the OT, they did so because they felt the original supported Christianity.

Forgive me...

Good day, Orthodoxyusa

Could you provide some historical sources that would include thier inclusion with in Jewish cannon before the first century?

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

Peace to u,
Bill

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Good day, Orthodoxyusa

Could you provide some historical sources that would include thier inclusion with in Jewish cannon before the first century?

[/size][/font]

Peace to u,
Bill

It's something I was taught in class, maybe someone else can provide proof... I'll just follow "The Orthodox Church" and trust what she says...

I've been beat up so much lately that I really am considering not responding to anything...

Forgive me..

 

[Oblio]

Could you provide some historical sources that would include thier inclusion with in Jewish cannon before the first century?

They are in the Septuagint, the Holy Scriptures of the Greek speaking Jews, this is undisputed.