The Apocryphs

[Apologetic]

I'm not talking about the gospel of Thomas here. I'm talking about the scriptures that Luther excluded from the Bible, Tobit, Judith, the prayer of Mannasse, the books of Maccabees, and so on.

I consider myself a Protestant, cuz I'm neither Roman Catholic nor Greek Orthodox, but I'm not completely Lutheran either. I thump people in the head with the Bible, parably speaking .

Anyways. Why did Luther exclude these books. Does anyone know?

 

[ChrisB]

I'm sure someone with gretare knowledge than I have will answer this as well but I've always understood that the Apocrypha was not officially accepted as scriptural by the Catholic Church until after Luther had rejected it. It was always controversial for a number of reasons eg lack of reference to Apocryphal works in the NT (with one exception), doctrinal problems, historical errors etc. Therefore it would seem that it was the RCC which added the Apocrypha not the other way round.

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm not talking about the gospel of Thomas here. I'm talking about the scriptures that Luther excluded from the Bible, Tobit, Judith, the prayer of Mannasse, the books of Maccabees, and so on.

I consider myself a Protestant, cuz I'm neither Roman Catholic nor Greek Orthodox, but I'm not completely Lutheran either. I thump people in the head with the Bible, parably speaking .

Anyways. Why did Luther exclude these books. Does anyone know?

Good Day, Apologetic

Luther never removed the Apocryphs from the scripture. The OT was the jewish cannon and had been established way before Luther.

Hebrew OT- Josephus



"Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses. . . . The prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books [Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, the twelve minor prophets considered as one, Job, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah [considered as one], Chronicles, Esther]. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life [Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs]. [As for the apocryphal books] From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable. And it is the instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God. [Against Apion 1:37-42]"

There are some ECF whom compile a list of OT books and the Apocrpha is left from thier lists as well.


Peace to u,

BBAS

 

[Phoebe]

Another question would be, why do we continue to leave them out?

 

[BBAS 64]

Another question would be, why do we continue to leave them out?

Good Day, Kim

How would we first establish that they would belong with in the Jewish OT books?

Now I am not saying they should not be read and are not use ful to help us in understanding our walk with God and how God interacted with some of his people.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Phoebe]

I wasn't implying that they should be a part of Scripture. (Original Hebrew text)

I just wanted to nip it in the bud before it became a debate about whether it should be there or not. Apparently there are reasons that they continue to be left out.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Actually Luther's translation of the Bible into German did include the Apocrypha. He did not acknowledge the texts as "inspired" (inspired in the sense that every word in the original text was God breathed and exactly what God intended to write). He indicated that they were good books to read, however.

I am interested in understanding why Luther gets the credit or blame (as the case may be) for ripping the apocrypha from the bible. Anyone know?

Peace

Rose

 

[Phoebe]

I was wondering the same. I think I ran across him using a quote from one of the books of the Apocrypha.

 

[dsdumpling]

Isn't the Jewish tradition of Hanukkah from the story of the Macabees?

 

[Bastoune]

Good Day, Apologetic

Luther never removed the Apocryphs from the scripture. The OT was the jewish cannon and had been established way before Luther.

Hebrew OT- Josephus



"Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses. . . . The prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books [Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, the twelve minor prophets considered as one, Job, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah [considered as one], Chronicles, Esther]. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life [Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs]. [As for the apocryphal books] From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable. And it is the instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God. [Against Apion 1:37-42]"

There are some ECF whom compile a list of OT books and the Apocrpha is left from thier lists as well.


Peace to u,

BBAS

Actually, the deuterocanonicals were controversial among the Jews due to their allusions to Christ Jesus and we officially rejected by the Jews in AD 90. (And as we know, even in the time of Jesus, there were Jews who did not accept anything but the Pentateuch, like the Sadduccees, and a lot of questions about Canon remained, especially in light of the rise of Christianity).

Their reasoning was that either Hebrew was not the original language of the texts (2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Daniel 13-14) or that the Hebrew was not extant (Judith, Baruch, Sirach, and 1 Maccabees). By excluding those books, they did away with many messianic prophecies which seemed to support that Jesus was the messiah. This new version became known as the Palestine Canon.


ChrisB is mistaken in his comment about them being "added" at any point.

The true fact is the council of Trent was the ecumenical council after the Reformation to officially declare the canon of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. But the same canon of the Bible declared at Trent was declared at Church Council in Hippo in 393, at Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 and at the ecumenical council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome in 1442.

Luther rejected these books based on the Jewish decision to reject them: a decision not led by the Holy Spirit since only the Church has the Holy Spirit to guide them as Jesus promised. Therefore, there is not really much logic, other than personal interpretation and the fact Luther did not agree with some of the content of these books, for him to reject them.

Some point to St. Jerome also having believed they should not have been included (yet he also didn't think Esther and Revelation should!), yet working with the Church Councils, the Body of Christ, he ratified the deuterocanonicals (along with the other Church Fathers there).

 

[eldermike]

a decision not led by the Holy Spirit since only the Church has the Holy Spirit to guide them as Jesus promised.

This is wrong. You are debating simply due to making statements that are far off from what we believe.

Do not debate in this forum.

 

[BBAS 64]

Actually, the deuterocanonicals were controversial among the Jews due to their allusions to Christ Jesus and we officially rejected by the Jews in AD 90. (And as we know, even in the time of Jesus, there were Jews who did not accept anything but the Pentateuch, like the Sadduccees, and a lot of questions about Canon remained, especially in light of the rise of Christianity).

Their reasoning was that either Hebrew was not the original language of the texts (2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Daniel 13-14) or that the Hebrew was not extant (Judith, Baruch, Sirach, and 1 Maccabees). By excluding those books, they did away with many messianic prophecies which seemed to support that Jesus was the messiah. This new version became known as the Palestine Canon.


ChrisB is mistaken in his comment about them being "added" at any point.

The true fact is the council of Trent was the ecumenical council after the Reformation to officially declare the canon of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. But the same canon of the Bible declared at Trent was declared at Church Council in Hippo in 393, at Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 and at the ecumenical council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome in 1442.

Luther rejected these books based on the Jewish decision to reject them: a decision not led by the Holy Spirit since only the Church has the Holy Spirit to guide them as Jesus promised. Therefore, there is not really much logic, other than personal interpretation and the fact Luther did not agree with some of the content of these books, for him to reject them.

Some point to St. Jerome also having believed they should not have been included (yet he also didn't think Esther and Revelation should!), yet working with the Church Councils, the Body of Christ, he ratified the deuterocanonicals (along with the other Church Fathers there).

Good day Bastoune,

Thank you for you imput here. I see the history in that Josephus pre dates 90 AD.

ECF on the issue:
Athanasius


"It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New."

"I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)


IMOH the other books that are part of the historical OT DO infact point to the comming of the Christ. I have not read all the Ap. books but in must say in weight when compareing them to the OT. They fall short in instances and clearity of the coming messiah.

So to believe they "were removed for that reason" IMO is just silly and unwarranted. Unless you must come with some idea that they were removed.

That is IMO not supported with in the history around the issue.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[eldermike]

Bastoune can't debate in this forum, please do not respond to debative posts from folks that are restricted by the forum specif rules.

 

[Apologetic]

thanks everyone. didn't get too much wiser, but I appreciate it anyways

 

[Isaiah 53]

I'm not talking about the gospel of Thomas here. I'm talking about the scriptures that Luther excluded from the Bible, Tobit, Judith, the prayer of Mannasse, the books of Maccabees, and so on.

I consider myself a Protestant, cuz I'm neither Roman Catholic nor Greek Orthodox, but I'm not completely Lutheran either. I thump people in the head with the Bible, parably speaking .

Anyways. Why did Luther exclude these books. Does anyone know?

Here is a great website on the Apocrypha. I enjoy reading them, although thier content is very beutiful in places (2 Esadra). I is obvious that they should not be included in Canon. IMHO

http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/apocrypha.htm

 

[II Paradox II]

I'm not talking about the gospel of Thomas here. I'm talking about the scriptures that Luther excluded from the Bible, Tobit, Judith, the prayer of Mannasse, the books of Maccabees, and so on.

Anyways. Why did Luther exclude these books. Does anyone know?

A few thoughts:

1) To the best of my knowledge all editions of Luther's bible included the apocrypha. Most classical protestant churches kept them. Even Calvin, who seems to reject them as canonical still quotes them and even exegetes them at times.

2) One distinction that is important here that most do not consider is that unlike today, most Christians in that past have had a fuzzier notion of what qualifies as as "canonical". There are canonical books with high authority used for doctrine and lesser books used for litugical reading or edification. To the best of my knowledge, Luther considered the apocrypha to be in this latter class.

3) Luther's suspicion of the apocrypha was not new to him. The apocrypha have had a mixed reception in the patristic period and that suspicion stayed active through the academic world through the late medieval period. Luther was well acquainted with Jerome's writings and probably got his suspicions about the apocrypha from him (jerome, of course, put them in his vulgate even though he personally did not think they were on the level of the rest of the OT).

4) As time has gone on, this fine distinction has become vitiated such that we usually regard the apocrypha with undue suspicion. Personally, I regard them much as many reformers did, useful for edification but not for the establishment of doctrine (I would also add such pseudopigraphical books such as the Book of Enoch to this list as well).

5) I found this short, but helpful article that may give you a better sense for the issue http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/apocrypha.txt

6) On the whole - please remember that these issue are far more complex than they appear on the surface. The theological environment these people lived in is far different from ours and it is easy to skew their reasons for doing things by viewing them in a modern light.

ken

 

[nyj]

...

 

[pmarquette]

I'm not talking about the gospel of Thomas here. I'm talking about the scriptures that Luther excluded from the Bible, Tobit, Judith, the prayer of Mannasse, the books of Maccabees, and so on.
can take a catholic bible , and go through the 7 books , and look at the foot notes , which might surprise some , to see tie ins with the Protestant canon of 66 .... or pick up a paralallel bible that has catholic , jeruslaem , niv , kjv all side by side ... to compare

I consider myself a Protestant, cuz I'm neither Roman Catholic nor Greek Orthodox, but I'm not completely Lutheran either. I thump people in the head with the Bible, parably speaking .
the story of the 7 husbands and same wife , the pharisees approached jesus with came from the book of tobit ... wisdom , baruch , and sirach have some similar passages in songs , ecclesiastes , etc.

good to read to fill in the 300 year gap between malachi and matthew
the rise of the pharisees , saduceees , the macabeean revolt , etc.

Anyways. Why did Luther exclude these books. Does anyone know?

I have no problem including them between covenants , where most reformers placed them .... Luther , Tyndale , Coverdale , etc.... still better reading than sports illustrated ... news paper ....