why not the apocrypha?

[Root of Jesse]

In the future when this issue comes up again, it might be best if we went immediately to asking why these books that are so obviously of a substantially different nature from the whole rest of scripture AND were in dispute among the Jews of the first century AD...

...should be considered by us to be inspired.

I'd be interested in seeing a persuasive defense of that proposition--if there is one--and I don't mean "A council said so, therefore we have to accept them."

Might want to ask, too, about what the Jewish canon was in Jesus time. Sadducees didn't believe in the Prophets, at all.

 

[concretecamper]

Well put. I remain quite unconvinced of the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books.

Would you mind sharing why you are unconvinced?

Also, didn't the same Church who said the 66 books you accept as divinely inspired also say the 6 books in question were also divinely inspired?

 

[Shane R]

A short piece I wrote a while back for an OT survey class:

The Deutero-canon collects the later Jewish wisdom literature, a few traditional stories, one or two unique books that don't quite fit in the established genres of the Protestant Old Testament, and some history. The greatest value of these books is the insight they provide into the religious life of the Jewish people shortly before the time of Christ.

No strong argument for the inerrancy of the material is forthcoming. However, those churches that retain the books (which encompass the three largest Christian traditions: Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican) do not typically speak of inerrancy in the way an Evangelical or Fundamentalist would. They place much more emphasis on the authority of the church than the writings themselves, and the churches have historically accepted the material. In fact, it is well incorporated into the traditional liturgies especially in antiphons and graduals and occasionally even in the lectionary. This reflects the idea of 'lex orandi, lex credendi' - the law of praying is the law of believing.

Briefly, we should analyze the development of the Protestant perspective to the books. The editors of the Geneva Bible described the Apocrypha as “books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church” (Geneva Bible 1560 Edition, 386) but they still translated and published the books, as did Luther and the commissioned translators from the Church of England - though set apart from the Old Testament. Melancthon and other early confessional formulators occasionally made a point from them and also against them, but they knew the books. Now Protestants are typically clueless to the content and many pastors accept by hearsay that the books are harmful as they are purported to teach purgatory and a few other prickly doctrines. Major Bible projects are not bothering to translate the books.

In the Foreword to The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition With Notes, Dr. Maier of Western Michigan University wrote, “Few in church history have regarded the Apocrypha as heretical; in fact, many have indeed regarded the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture.” The pertinent question is, why did the Masoretes reject the literature? It seems the strongest considerations were the uncertain authorship of the books and the thematic content being too far outside the scope of the threefold focus of Tanak (Hill & Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 490-491). I do not agree with Hill and Walton's assertion that, “In the final analysis, we have to assume the same Holy Spirit who inspired the human authors to write the books also superintended the Hebrew leaders during the canon selection process” (ibid. 490). I am more inclined to accept the conciliar decision of the church.

 

[fatherjimparker]

Excellent point. Applying this to the topic at hand.....

Once the Church proclaimed in the late 4th Century that 72 books were divinely inspired, this list of 72 books became know as the Bible. The Universal Church accepted these 72 books as divinely inspired for over 1,000 years.

Along comes a small circle of men (who claim infallibility when it comes to deciding which books of the current canon does not belong) who dictate that 6 of the 72 books are not divinely inspired. So we have our protestant brother and sister who scoff at infallibility yet project that same infallibility to a select few that lived 500 years ago.

I have heard better constructed explanations from JW at my doorstep with regards to their interpretation of John 1:1 than any arguments presented here against the Apocrypha.

I sometimes wonder if God puts cotton balls in His ears so he doesn't have to listen to His children shouting at each other. ( "You're a stinker!" "Am not! YOU'RE a stinker.")

 

[RDKirk]

Along comes a small circle of men (who claim infallibility when it comes to deciding which books of the current canon does not belong) who dictate that 6 of the 72 books are not divinely inspired. So we have our protestant brother and sister who scoff at infallibility yet project that same infallibility to a select few that lived 500 years ago.

Except that as we've discussed here, that never happened. No "small circle of men" ever made that decision. It was an economic decision of publishers.

 

[Albion]

Would you mind sharing why you are unconvinced?

Also, didn't the same Church who said the 66 books you accept as divinely inspired also say the 6 books in question were also divinely inspired?

Where did you get the idea that IF the Church decides upon X number of books as being inspired, it must be infallible in that decision?

And if you DO assume that, what do you do with the fact that not only did Protestants reopen the discussion in the 16th century but the supposedly infallible "Church" changed its mind and eliminated some of the Apocrypha at that time also?

 

[concretecamper]

what do you do with the fact that not only did Protestants reopen the discussion in the 16th century but the supposedly infallible "Church" changed its mind and eliminated some of the Apocrypha at that time also?

it is not a fact....the canon as decided at Rome (A.D. 392) is the same canon defined at Florence (A.D. 1438) is the same canon defined at Trent (to name 3 councils dealing with the canon)

Where did you get the idea that IF the Church decides upon X number of books as being inspired, it must be infallible in that decision?

You accept their decision. YOU say 66 books are divinely inspired and the only reason you say this is because the Church says this. Perhaps you can share with all of us who are the infallible people who declared some books were not divinely inspired?? PLEASE tell us who these infallible people are!

 

[Albion]

it is not a fact....the canon as decided at Rome (A.D. 392) is the same canon defined at Florence (A.D. 1438)

Possibly it would help you, in understanding my post, to realize that the Protestant Reformation occurred AFTER the Council of Florence.

 

[concretecamper]

Possibly it would help you, in understanding my post, to realize that the Protestant Reformation occurred AFTER the Council of Florence.

Perhaps if you addressed my claim that you are wrong.....it may move the conversation forward.

but the supposedly infallible "Church" changed its mind and eliminated some of the Apocrypha at that time also?

 

[Albion]

Perhaps if you addressed my claim that you are wrong.....it may move the conversation forward.

All right, I'll address it. You missed my point entirely, and I was right about what I wrote.

The RCC eliminated some of the Apocrypha in the 16th century. I don't know if you are aware of that. You replied by referring to the Council of Florence which took place over a century earlier, so, obviously, it wasn't in the 16th century and couldn't have had any effect on whether the Church eliminated some material from its Bibles or not during the Reformation or the Counter-reformation periods.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>...these books that are so obviously of a substantially different nature from the whole rest of scripture...</snip>

Would you please elaborate as to why they are "obviously of a substantially different nature"? Thank you.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I sure hope they aren't inspired. If you changed some proper nouns, 2 Mac would sound like an account of the Taliban. As far as I can tell the Maccabbees are the spiritual ancestors of the Pharisees, and thus opposed to Jesus' teachings.

Weird logic. How would you describe Phineas? He is a hero in the Books of Moses because he entered the tent of a fornicating Jew and skewered him and her through with a spear while they were in the act. You seem to be ssaying, "I don't like them which shows me they're wrong for the Bible."

 

[SummaScriptura]

Every one of them, with the possible exception of Revelation can safely be said to have been considered divine revelation by the churches of the world prior to those councils; and they were using them as God's word. What the councils did was put a seal of approval upon them, not "create the Bible" as is so often said.

There is not now, nor has there ever been a universally agreed upon list of the books of the Old Testament. There are at least 5 different lineups of O.T. books in use by Chrsitians in the world today. You can cite a council here, a synod here, but the fact remains those councils and synods were not universally followed and they differ from each other.

 

[FireDragon76]

Might want to ask, too, about what the Jewish canon was in Jesus time. Sadducees didn't believe in the Prophets, at all.

Yeah, first century Jews were a divided group religiously. Besides the ones listed in the New Testament, there were other groups, probably only a few of which we know of due to archeology (such as the Essenes). Hellenistic Judaism was a movement all of its own, and in some ways it was closer to what would later become Christianity.

 

[SummaScriptura]

It seems like the only Christian tradition that takes a hard stance against the apocryphal books is the Reformed tradition. The Lutheran Confessions don't actually say that the questioned books are not Scriptures, at least in terms of the Formula of Concord and Augsburg Confession.

The original German Bible had Luther's gloss, so I guess some Lutherans just take that authoritative... but why? Nobody claimed Luther's sole opinion was infallible, and his opinion of the books seems a bit inconsistent (good to read, not scripture, and yet, left in the Bible... the same is true of some New Testament books). The truth is, in the past, Lutherans did read from these books on various feast days and occasions... in churches as part of the lessons. Some parts of the apocrypha are still referenced in the various collects in the liturgy or the offices.

The Episcopal Church and Church of England still uses them in worship, in fact for centuries it was illegal to publish a Bible without their inclusion. They are considered part of the Bible but not a source of doctrine. The same is true of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

A lot of these books are good to read to understand 1st century Judaism and how the various Gospels relate to Jewish wisdom literature (especially John and the Johanine community's view of Jesus). Without them, a lot of the context of the New Testament is lost. N.T. Wright references them frequently in his works.

The belief that these books were not written in Hebrew has been challenged, esp. in regards to the find of some of these books in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in the 40's.

Good post. Since 2007, I've considered them part of the Bible. I also accept the books of the broader class of disputed books of the Old Testament which are/were found in the communions of Armenian, Syrian, and Ethiopic Orthodoxy. They help me understand the core 66 books and in their own right are nothing short of phenomenal when properly interpreted.

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah, first century Jews were a divided group religiously. Besides the ones listed in the New Testament, there were other groups, probably only a few of which we know of due to archeology (such as the Essenes). Hellenistic Judaism was a movement all of its own, and in some ways it was closer to what would later become Christianity.

I would not call Hellenist Judaism a "movement." It was not a "modernist movement" nor was it a "liberal movement." It was the result of forced separation, and the Hellenist Jews attempted to retain Judaism as well as they could under their circumstances. Sadducees and Hellenists are different groups, btw.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Except that as we've discussed here, that never happened. No "small circle of men" ever made that decision. It was an economic decision of publishers.

The decision of publishers to drop books was much later. The decision that they were not inspired came more than 200 years earlier, so the previous poster has it right.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>The pertinent question is, why did the Masoretes reject the literature?</snip>

Problem with the chronology here... The Masoretes come on the scene in the 6th century. The limits of the Hebrew Scriptures had been established by Jewish religious leaders almost 500 years earlier.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>As far as I can tell the Maccabbees are the spiritual ancestors of the Pharisees, and thus opposed to Jesus' teachings.

So, let me see if I get you...

The Maccabees are guilty of the sins that a future generation would commit?

 

[SummaScriptura]

If they're in the NT, they are considered to be inspired. If they are in the Apocryhpha but NOT affirmed in the NT, they're not. This isn't that hard to understand.

So, do you consider Ecclesiastes uninspired since it is NOT affirmed in the NT.