The Aporcapha

[bibleblevr]

I have been discussing the Apocrypha with a Protestant friend of mine, but I don't know much about the Catholic stance on these book. Is it on the same plain as scripture? I have heard that the RCC recognizes only some of them as inspired.

Also, my friend raises the issue that there are not any copies of the Septuagint that include the Apocrypha(Or most of it anyways) before 100AD, is this true? When was it put in the Septuagint? and how do we know this date?

Any info would be great, I have difficulty coming to a view on this, the early church fathers seem split on this as well.

Thanks
Jake

 

[Dark_Lite]

The proper spelling is Apocrypha.

But these books are more correctly called the Deuterocanonical books. Apocrypha is a term applied to heretical works that were never in the Bible. It gets applied to these works today mostly by Protestants because they're ignorant of the history or they know of the history and still found the arguments for the works' validity unconvincing.

In every strain of Christianity except Protestantism, the Deuterocanon is considered inspired. They were included in the canon promulgated at the regional Councils which defined the Biblical canon (Hippo and Carthage). When the canon was formally closed in the West at Trent, they were kept as well. I am not sure what the East did with them.

But you are indeed correct in that the Deuterocanon differs slightly between apostolic Churches. If anything, this is a testament to the fluidity of the biblical canon and the necessity of Tradition. But that's for another topic.

The Septuagint had the Deuterocanonical works in it, and considering much of the Deuterocanon is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, your friend's claim is incorrect.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The proper spelling is Apocrypha.

But these books are more correctly called the Deuterocanonical books. Apocrypha is a term applied to heretical works that were never in the Bible. It gets applied to these works today mostly by Protestants because they're ignorant of the history or they know of the history and still found the arguments for the works' validity unconvincing.

In every strain of Christianity except Protestantism, the Deuterocanon is considered inspired. They were included in the canon promulgated at the regional Councils which defined the Biblical canon (Hippo and Carthage). When the canon was formally closed in the West at Trent, they were kept as well. I am not sure what the East did with them.

But you are indeed correct in that the Deuterocanon differs slightly between apostolic Churches. If anything, this is a testament to the fluidity of the biblical canon and the necessity of Tradition. But that's for another topic.

The Septuagint had the Deuterocanonical works in it, and considering much of the Deuterocanon is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, your friend's claim is incorrect.

Amen.

Jim

 

[AMDG]

It also depends on what is meant. Catholics call the Deuterocaonical books (seven Old Testament books in Catholic Bibles that are excluded from most Protestant Bibles, although the 1611 King James Bible includes them, because Catholics go by the Alexandrian canon, completed between 250-125 BC, and Protestants go by the Palestine canon of about 100 A.D.) Then there are Apocryphal books of both the Old and New Testaments that neither Catholics or Protestants consider part of their canon. Protestants usually call these books Pseudepigrapha. I think the word "apocrypha" refers to "hidden".

Oh, the Alexandrian translation gives us the word "Septuagint". It is Latin for 70 (LXX), the supposed number of translators. The city of Alexandria in Egypt was supposed to have the greatest library in the ancient world and during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70 Jewish scholars (according to tradition there were about six from each of the twelve tribes.)

Enjoyed the book Background to the Bible: An Introduction to Scripture Study by Richard T. A. Murphy,O.P. Don't know if it's still in print though.

 

[benedictaoo]

I have been discusing the apocraph with a protestent friend of mine, but I don't know much about the Catholic satnd on these book. Is it on the same palin as scripture? I have heard that the RCC recognises only some of them as inspired.

Also, my friend raises the issue that there are not any copies of the septuigent that include the aporcipha(Or most of it anyways) before 100AD, is this true? When was it put in the Septuigent? and how do we know this date?

Any info would be great, I have difficulty coming to a view on this, the early church fathers seem split on this as well.

Thanks
Jake

And sorry about the spelling, spell check isn't working I hope it is readable

no, they weren't split on it and yes its treated as scripture. It is the Jewish books that certain Jews had and the Church included them in the canon.

The controversy is over two things. becuase Luther ripped them out, Trent affirmed them. Some Prots will try to argue that Trent 1500 years after the fact included them, no, they affirmed them infallibly becuase Luther was reducing them to non inspired.

and other thing is, the Jewish canon did no include them and this is another argument for it being becuase they are not inspired but that is becuase they were used and in the possession of Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria.

and why do we care who and what the Jews put in their canon? They canonized their books after the NT testament in order so that Jews will reject the NT scriptures.

 

[bibleblevr]

Catholics go by the Alexandrian canon, completed between 250-125 BC, and Protestants go by the Palestine canon of about 100 A.D.) .

Do we have an example of the Alexandrian canon prior to 100AD or are all copies of the Septuagint with the Deuterocaonical books more recent. If more recent, then my Protestant friend would like to know how we know the Septuagint included those books prior to Jesus' time and were not added later on.

Do you guys have any links to sites that prove early copies of these books were circulated prior to Christ? Maybe an Early copy of the LXX?

I know that a few of them were found in the dead sea scrolls, but this does not prove that they were used and accepted as scripture before Christ. The book of enoch was also found, but it is not accepted.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Do we have an example of the Alexandrian canon prior to 100AD or are all copies of the Septuagint with the Deuterocaonical books more recent. If more recent, then my Protestant friend would like to know how we know the Septuagint included those books prior to Jesus' time and were not added later on.

Do you guys have any links to sites that prove early copies of these books were circulated prior to Christ? Maybe an Early copy of the LXX?

I know that a few of them were found in the dead sea scrolls, but this does not prove that they were used and accepted as scripture before Christ. The book of enoch was also found, but it is not accepted.

This sounds like a question for an archaeologist or a Biblical scholar. I don't know how many of them frequent the boards.

One thing that I wonder is whether there are any copies of the Septuagint which predate the birth of Christ still in existence. The vast majority of books, even important ones, have been destroyed, often through simple deterioration through natural causes. Most ancient works are only known of through later transcriptions and translations.

But honestly I don't know anything about the specifics of this case.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

The proper spelling is Apocrypha.

But these books are more correctly called the Deuterocanonical books. Apocrypha is a term applied to heretical works that were never in the Bible. It gets applied to these works today mostly by Protestants because they're ignorant of the history or they know of the history and still found the arguments for the works' validity unconvincing.

In every strain of Christianity except Protestantism, the Deuterocanon is considered inspired. They were included in the canon promulgated at the regional Councils which defined the Biblical canon (Hippo and Carthage). When the canon was formally closed in the West at Trent, they were kept as well. I am not sure what the East did with them.

But you are indeed correct in that the Deuterocanon differs slightly between apostolic Churches. If anything, this is a testament to the fluidity of the biblical canon and the necessity of Tradition. But that's for another topic.

The Septuagint had the Deuterocanonical works in it, and considering much of the Deuterocanon is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, your friend's claim is incorrect.

Nicely put.

That's what I think is odd, Protestants are always using the Deutrocanonical texts in reference to the Revelation 22:19 and yet, from what I understand, it wasn't until the Reformation that said texts were removed. Ironic.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Here is a great article

5 Myths about 7 Books

God bless!

 

[Davidnic]

Do we have an example of the Alexandrian canon prior to 100AD or are all copies of the Septuagint with the Deuterocaonical books more recent. If more recent, then my Protestant friend would like to know how we know the Septuagint included those books prior to Jesus' time and were not added later on.

Do you guys have any links to sites that prove early copies of these books were circulated prior to Christ? Maybe an Early copy of the LXX?

I know that a few of them were found in the dead sea scrolls, but this does not prove that they were used and accepted as scripture before Christ. The book of enoch was also found, but it is not accepted.

Would Christ quoting them as Scripture do? Check out this page: link

Christ and the early fathers all quote from those books as Scripture...they do not say: "According to..." but they quote in the manner that shows all of the Jewish people at the time would have know the content and importance of those books.