why not the apocrypha?

[Albion]

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

I believe you misread my comment, SS. I said that they are not in the NT (and) they are not inspired. I did not say that any book which is not referred to in the NT is, therefore, uninspired by definition.

There is not now, nor has there ever been a universally agreed upon list of the books of the Old Testament.

and there may have been a misunderstanding here, too. My point was that all the books that got into the NT were already recognized as inspired and in use by the churches of the Christian world prior to canonization.

 

[Standing Up]

I am still waiting for our protestant freinds to show where the Church (or anyone for that fact), prior to the Reformation, ever defined their 66 book list as the canon of scripture. I'll even take fairy tales at this point.

Athanasius listed the 27 books of the NT.
Melito listed the 39 books of the OT (sans maybe Esther, unless combined with Ezra/Nehemia).

Let's not forget the definition. Built on prophets (OT) and apostles (NT). Maccabees itself uses that definition (prophetic voice) to tell us that inspired scripture stopped at Malachi, awaiting the prophesied forerunner. The story picks up again at John the Baptist. From there, you probably know the rest of the story.

 

[Unix]

Almost every Protestant throughout times and still today have insisted on Esther being Scripure and I highly doubt it has ever been combined with Ezra/Nehemiah. It's as ridiculous as it gets. Esther is among the favourite Scripture among many. Even worse, a large part of Christians see all the 39 OT books as equal.
This includes priests/pastors, elders, bishops, Church councils, reformators, missionaries. So there is no list before the Reformation; and during Athanasius time there were still some who didn't accept all NT books and Athanasius used some force to stay in charge and claimed staying in charge all his long career, which he in fact didn't - he came back to his position several times, see: Timothy D. Barnes (1993). Athanasius and Constantius : theology and politics in the Constantinian empire. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA and London:

Athanasius listed the 27 books of the NT.
Melito listed the 39 books of the OT (sans maybe Esther, unless combined with Ezra/Nehemia).

 

[Standing Up]

Almost every Protestant throughout times and still today have insisted on Esther being Scripure and I highly doubt it has ever been combined with Ezra/Nehemiah. It's as ridiculous as it gets. Esther is among the favourite Scripture among many. Even worse, a large part of Christians see all the 39 OT books as equal.
This includes priests/pastors, elders, bishops, Church councils, reformators, missionaries. So there is no list before the Reformation; and during Athanasius time there were still some who didn't accept all NT books and Athanasius used some force to stay in charge and claimed staying in charge all his long career, which he in fact didn't - he came back to his position several times, see: Timothy D. Barnes (1993). Athanasius and Constantius : theology and politics in the Constantinian empire. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA and London:

Just tossing it out as possible, after all it took place at the same time. In any event, Melito lists the same 39 book as canon, sans Esther. Years later there was question about the OT canon.

 

[Unix]

OK, well Melito is still still not an authority everywhere, because a person can be "right" about a detail and not as popular about something completely different (such as the date for Easter, which even when agreeing about the date still is a matter of the importance of Easter). Same thing about Athanasius: while he was right about the Trinity there were other things where he either wasn't or misconducted (such as trying to hide evidence) - although that might have added up to something good: perhaps a few more believe in the trinity "thanks to" how Athanasius conducted:

Just tossing it out as possible, after all it took place at the same time.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>Maccabees itself uses that definition (prophetic voice) to tell us that inspired scripture stopped at Malachi, awaiting the prophesied forerunner. The story picks up again at John the Baptist. From there, you probably know the rest of the story.

I think you are misreading 1 Maccabees. It says there was no prophet and they were waiting for one to show. There is no definition of the 'prophetic voice'. There is no mention of Malachi and certainly John the Baptist does not pick up anything from then.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Just tossing it out as possible, after all it took place at the same time. In any event, Melito lists the same 39 book as canon, sans Esther. Years later there was question about the OT canon.

Anyone looking through a peephole in a fence could report what little they see, like Melito. From what we know for sure the situation was even more diverse in the past than it is today. For instance, I have detected no less than 5 different line-ups of OT books in use by orthodox Christians in the world today.

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

Actually Jesus was a Pharisee of the school of Hillel which was more attuned to the spirit of the law, while the Sandhedrin at that period of time was ruled by the school of Shammai, which was more attuned to the letter of the law.

 

[Standing Up]

I think you are misreading 1 Maccabees. It says there was no prophet and they were waiting for one to show. There is no definition of the 'prophetic voice'. There is no mention of Malachi and certainly John the Baptist does not pick up anything from then.

There's three references in 1 Macc about no prophets existent during its times. It is Josephus who defines that "silent period" from Ezra to John the Baptist as lacking a prophetic line, "an exact succession of prophets". In the NT, we're built on OT prophets and NT apostles. They're the "voice of God" as it were. So, no prophets or apostles means no potential inspired work written. For example, the Book of Mormon isn't authentic because its not written during apostolic times. Same principle as with 1 Macc.

 

[Standing Up]

Anyone looking through a peephole in a fence could report what little they see, like Melito. From what we know for sure the situation was even more diverse in the past than it is today. For instance, I have detected no less than 5 different line-ups of OT books in use by orthodox Christians in the world today.

True enough that there's various lists. One needs a standard, eh? One is no contradictions. Book of Jubilees contradicts Exodus for example. Why reject one and not the other? No prophetic line during BoJ writing time.

 

[Unix]

Are You talking about the final editing of the books of the Old Testament? When it comes to the New Testament contradictions within it are not a problem. But I do agree there are more reasons to exclude contradictions within the Old Testament - however since lots of things changed during the long period of time when the things in the Old Testament happened, we need to look from several sources at how things were recorded and what explanations given. Different theologies entered the scene, and vanished being replaced by new theologies, one after the other.
Instead of a Prophetic voice, for a time we had to rely on The book of Ecclesiasticus which guided how to live and was always read a lot - it was an established text in most places, perhaps not later in the Jewish religion if we for example accept a Council of Jamnia (Javne). Prophets too, ultimately sought for the most effective ways how to make peoples hearts change and turn from foreign Gods to Yahweh and then Jesus also, and commit less sin, smaller sins or perhaps no sins after the age of accountability so that there would be less suffering.
Why should we now change the patterns? Same texts keep us on the narrow path today, if read. I know personally that if I would have read the Bible more during a period I read it the least, I would have stood a better chance to remember some of the excellent advice in it - I would have needed to know what I can read and take to heart, not what I can exclude:

True enough that there's various lists. One needs a standard, eh? One is no contradictions. Book of Jubilees contradicts Exodus for example. Why reject one and not the other? No prophetic line during BoJ writing time.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>Maccabees itself uses that definition (prophetic voice) to tell us that inspired scripture stopped at Malachi, awaiting the prophesied forerunner. The story picks up again at John the Baptist. From there, you probably know the rest of the story.

I think you are misreading 1 Maccabees. It says there was no prophet and they were waiting for one to show. There is no definition of the 'prophetic voice'. There is no mention of Malachi and certainly John the Baptist does not pick up anything from then.

There's three references in 1 Macc about no prophets existent during its times. It is Josephus who defines that "silent period" from Ezra to John the Baptist as lacking a prophetic line, "an exact succession of prophets". In the NT, we're built on OT prophets and NT apostles. They're the "voice of God" as it were. So, no prophets or apostles means no potential inspired work written. For example, the Book of Mormon isn't authentic because its not written during apostolic times. Same principle as with 1 Macc.

Is this a form of bait-and-switch? I'm sorry, but if you are going to continue with this style of conversation, (and I've seen you do it before), its really not worth continuing.

First you make these outrageous claims about Maccabees, then when you're called out, you seem flippant, as if you're saying, "oh you misunderstood me, I always meant to be defending this web of conclusions I've arrived at, its not really found in 1 Maccabees."

Let's be clear, Maccabees states there was not a prophet at that time, but they were expecting one.

Also, long before John the B, the Jews were already taking prophecy as somewhat normative, evidenced by Anna and Simeon who are prophets in the temple.

 

[BobRyan]

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..

So then all of Christianity except Catholic and Lutheran groups -- reject the Apocrypha -- and so do the Jews admit that the OT does not include the apocryphal writings.

 

[Shane R]

So then all of Christianity except Catholic and Lutheran groups -- reject the Apocrypha -- and so do the Jews admit that the OT does not include the apocryphal writings.

That's not saying much when what is left: ie. not Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or Lutheran; is only about 30% of the whole.

 

[Standing Up]

Let's be clear, Maccabees states there was not a prophet at that time, but they were expecting one.

Yes, no prophet at the time of 1 Macc. and they were expecting one. This is the same thing Josephus says. No valid prophetic line. But they knew the forerunner was prophesied.

Also, long before John the B, the Jews were already taking prophecy as somewhat normative, evidenced by Anna and Simeon who are prophets in the temple.

Simeon prophecies after the time of Christ's birth. After John.

Anna shows up about the same time, after Christ's birth, after John, though she devoutly lived in the Temple before John. Devout doesn't mean prophet.

Your job, since you think prophets existed after Malachi and before John is to show that, rather than make my point.

 

[SummaScriptura]

No. That's a diversion. This thread is not about a hypothetical "silent period" after Malachi. This thread is about the Apocrypha. I corrected you when you were giving out untruth about what 1 Maccabees says.

 

[SummaScriptura]

That's not saying much when what is left: ie. not Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or Lutheran; is only about 30% of the whole.

Let's be clear about one thing. Anglicans do not accept any of the disputed books of the Old Testament as inspired Scripture. They accept them as good to read, and it is my understanding they have some readings from those books in their lectionaries.

 

[FireDragon76]

The books are not just used in lectionaries, they are also used as a basis for some of the liturgy. This is also true in the Lutheran tradition.

There is not one doctrine of inspiration in the Christian world, so bracketing the disputed books as uninspired has to be taken in context

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>There is not one doctrine of inspiration in the Christian world, so bracketing the disputed books as uninspired has to be taken in context

I'm not sure I get you. Can you elaborate?

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure I get you. Can you elaborate?

I just meant that not all Christians agree on exactly how the Bible is divinely inspired. In some contexts, the exactly doctrinal status of deuterocanonical books matters less, and it matters more in helping us to understand the context of first-century Judaism.