why not the apocrypha?

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

This is all highly debateable. The Orthodox and most Patristic figures regarded St. John the Apostle as being St. John of Patmos, with some exceptions (hence the controversy about its inclusion).

Yes but most biblical scholars, probably even Orthodox ones, would see the two as different figures.

 

[Wgw]

Yes but most biblical scholars, probably even Orthodox ones, would see the two as different figures.

Speaking purely for Orthodoxy, someone who regarded them as distinct would technically be non-Orthodox, because our sacred tradition, which is legislative as per canon 73 of St. Basil the Great, says they were the same person. It is simply a matter of doctrine.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Truth is, both Protestants and Catholics have removed books from the Bible. Ever hear of the "Prayer of Manasseh" among others?

 

[FireDragon76]

The Prayer of Manasseh is in the NRSV and CEB. It is read in the Episcopal/Anglican church sometimes as part of an office.
Jesus is not).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I noticed a similarity between the Sadducees only accepting the Pentateuch as "inspired" and rejecting the prophets who prophesied a New Covenant to come which would put them out of business and those Protestants who reject the Apocrypha which contains prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees and that's waaaaaay too Catholic for them.

Each group rejected what they thought was a challenge to their theology.

Probably not important

Actually, our Lutheran Confessions state that prayers for the dead are beneficial (but does not state why); from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

"... we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit; but we disapprove of the application ex opere operato of the Lord's Supper on behalf of the dead."[28]

A good article and discussion here: http://weedon.blogspot.ca/2009/11/on-prayer-for-dead.html

The LCMS and LCC have indeed retained their use in various Liturgical applications.

 

[FireDragon76]

The ELCA does this also, Mark, but it seems to vary parish by parish. It's mostly been reserved for large tragedies.

 

[Neostarwcc]

A lot of people do not trust in the Apocrypha because it contains many dark subjects and supposedly contains references to Magic, Suicide, Lying, Assassination, and Magical Incarnation. (I don't know I have never read the Apocrypha past Baruch and I think Baruch contains a lot of things that are God inspired)

Also, publishers simply removed it in 1885 also, to save money. They considered the extra 3-500 pages to be irrelevant information to be spending extra money on printing.

None of it was permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. Not counting Roman Catholicism. But, even the Catholics rejected parts of the Apocrypha. IMO, if you're going to accept parts of the Apocrypha and call parts of it the word of God, you should include ALL of it. You either deny all of it or you agree with all of it. Because, if ANY part of the Apocrypha is in fact, from the Lord than ALL of it is. Period. God was definitely clear on that.

So, there's only two possible scenarios that could possibly exist. Either ALL of the Apocrypha is the inspired and breathed by God or NONE of it is and is just something that was made up from man's opinion. Those are the ONLY two possible options.

They also weren't written in Hebrew like all the rest of the Old Testament (The Apocrypha were all written in OT times before Christ came) so, that kind of subtracts from their credibility as well for some people. They were written in Greek and Latin.

But, to them the final nail in the coffin is the fact that, even King James himself thought that the Apocrypha was a "joke" and was definitely not God inspired, and only ordered it in the King James Bible for the sake of completeness and for Christians to discern for themselves whether or not the Apocrypha was God breathed or not. While, he believed that the bible should be whole and pure, and gave people this option, he made his own opinions definitively clear. He didn't agree with the Apocrypha AT ALL.

Me personally? I DO believe the Apocrypha should be included in the bible. I don't think it should ever have been removed. In fact, I own a replica 1611 King James First Edition with the Apocrypha included in it. I believe the Apocrypha should be included in the bible for several reasons. One, I agree with King James that the bible should be whole and complete due to several verses contained in the OT and NT (Revelation 22:18-19) (Deuteronomy 4:2) (Proverbs 30:5-6) (Deuteronomy 12:32). Two, as I explained I do like, enjoy, and agree with the book of Baruch so, I do believe that the Apocrypha does have some truth to it. So, if I agree with some of what I've read of the Apocrypha, it must ALL be real.

I mean, I know that when these words were said, they probably meant the OT and NT that we all use today in the KJV But, yeah. It's worth spending the extra money to have the bible whole and complete and for us to discern for ourselves whether or not the Apocrypha is God breathed or not. I do believe though that if one comes to the conclusion that parts of it is, that all of it must be.

But, for me to get a complete and definitive opinion on whether or not they are definitely the divine and inspired word of God, I'll have to READ them all first. But, from what I've been hearing and read so far, and because of what the bible says in multiple places that were proven correct, I disagree with the mainstream opinion. My opinion might change as I read and study the entirety of the Apocrypha but, for now I do believe them to be breathed by God. And at the very least, should be in every Christians Library and read by all Christians.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<Snip>
But, to them the final nail in the coffin is the fact that, even King James himself thought that the Apocrypha was a "joke" and was definitely not God inspired, and only ordered it in the King James Bible for the sake of completeness and for Christians to discern for themselves whether or not the Apocrypha was God breathed or not. While, he believed that the bible should be whole and pure, and gave people this option, he made his own opinions definitively clear. He didn't agree with the Apocrypha AT ALL.
<Snip>

When authority over the Church is given to a Monarch, and the Church becomes locally politicized, no good ever comes of it. Personally, I see the "State Churches" established following the reformation as having become and continuing to be more "humanistic" than "theological".

 

[Neostarwcc]

When authority over the Church is given to a Monarch, and the Church becomes locally politicized, no good ever comes of it. Personally, I see the "State Churches" established following the reformation as having become and continuing to be more "humanistic" than "theological".

Well we were taught by the Lord to obey our Monarchy but, yeah I definitely see your point. I don't know what my opinion would have been had I lived in England in those times. I probably would have obeyed my Monarchy since that's a big belief of mine that the Monarchy should never have gone away.

But I might have been hard-pressed as, I definitely don't agree with Roman Catholicism at all and several parts of English Royalty forced their subjects into Catholicism. At least King James was one of the few Protestant Kings. I definitely would have sided with much of his religious beliefs. I even agree with many of them today aside from, his beliefs on the Apocrypha.

 

[FireDragon76]

When authority over the Church is given to a Monarch, and the Church becomes locally politicized, no good ever comes of it. Personally, I see the "State Churches" established following the reformation as having become and continuing to be more "humanistic" than "theological".

Erastianism was fairly common in Protestant lands. It wasn't until the Oxford Movement that the Church of England really moved away from just supporting the political establishment - which is a good thing in a practical way because it kept a lot of politically liberal voices within the CoE - what would become the modern Labour party. I am not as much an expert but it seems like the EKD in Germany always kept the Erastian tendency until after WWII. It came from the practice of using magistrates as bishops.

 

[bbbbbbb]

When authority over the Church is given to a Monarch, and the Church becomes locally politicized, no good ever comes of it. Personally, I see the "State Churches" established following the reformation as having become and continuing to be more "humanistic" than "theological".

I find this somewhat peculiar coming from a Lutheran whose founder used the power of the state and encouraged it mightily. I come from a very long line of dissenters who have usually been on the wrong side when it comes to persecution from state churches. I agree entirely with your observations. Thank you.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luther disliked social chaos and even unnecessary reform (he assosciated it with works-righteousness). Christ didn't command people to set up mini theocratic regimes in cities, but that is what many of the "fanatics" favored. At the time the proto-Anabaptists were spreading teachings perceived by Luther and other reformers as promoting chaos and anarchy.

The Anabaptist ethic is frankly unrealistic and therefore, unethical, making the Gospel into a new Law. As Reinhold Niebuhr pointed out in his theology, in a fallen world such as ours, we often have to settle for justice instead of pure love and meekness. That's unfortunate but it is also paradoxically the ethical thing to do. If we want to go beyond this, then we must personally take up our cross and sacrifice, but nobody can bind anybody else's conscience to this, it must be an unconditioned expression of love as part of our vocation or calling from God - else it would be an obligation, and not love.

Yet Anabaptists and Neo-Anabaptists (Shane Claiborne being a good example) believe in a dichotomy between the Church and "the world". If you aren't a member of the pure elect set apart from the world, somehow you are part of an "evil system" and are therefore unredeemed. I find this sort of idea strange. Jesus didn't condemn the centurion for being a soldier, and he didn't condemn tax collectors for being tax collectors and working for the state.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I find this somewhat peculiar coming from a Lutheran whose founder used the power of the state and encouraged it mightily. I come from a very long line of dissenters who have usually been on the wrong side when it comes to persecution from state churches. I agree entirely with your observations. Thank you.

Thanks for your agreement. The fact that it happened does not make it right; yet God may have seen is a appropriate at the time. It's above my pay scale.

Luther disliked social chaos and even unnecessary reform (he assosciated it with works-righteousness). Christ didn't command people to set up mini theocratic regimes in cities, but that is what many of the "fanatics" favored. At the time the proto-Anabaptists were spreading teachings perceived by Luther and other reformers as promoting chaos and anarchy.

The Anabaptist ethic is frankly unrealistic and therefore, unethical, making the Gospel into a new Law. As Reinhold Niebuhr pointed out in his theology, in a fallen world such as ours, we often have to settle for justice instead of pure love and meekness. That's unfortunate but it is also paradoxically the ethical thing to do. If we want to go beyond this, then we must personally take up our cross and sacrifice, but nobody can bind anybody else's conscience to this, it must be an unconditioned expression of love as part of our vocation or calling from God - else it would be an obligation, and not love.

Yet Anabaptists and Neo-Anabaptists (Shane Claiborne being a good example) believe in a dichotomy between the Church and "the world". If you aren't a member of the pure elect set apart from the world, somehow you are part of an "evil system" and are therefore unredeemed. I find this sort of idea strange. Jesus didn't condemn the centurion for being a soldier, and he didn't condemn tax collectors for being tax collectors and working for the state.

Points well made.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks for your agreement. The fact that it happened does not make it right; yet God may have seen is a appropriate at the time. It's above my pay scale.



Points well made.

Above my pay scale, as well. Thanks.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The apocrypha was originally in the KJV, but was removed in its final edition in the 1700s.
http://www.davince.com/download/kjvbiblea.pdf
.
Since most of the theological changes that happened in the 1700s were wrong, I tend to think of the removal of the apocrypha as an extension of that.
.
I think this may be a good hint at the change in attitude towards scripture when sola scriptura began to become solo scriptura in application.

 

[Albion]

The apocrypha was originally in the KJV, but was removed in its final edition in the 1700s.
http://www.davince.com/download/kjvbiblea.pdf
.
Since most of the theological changes that happened in the 1700s were wrong, I tend to think of the removal of the apocrypha as an extension of that.
.
I think this may be a good hint at the change in attitude towards scripture when sola scriptura began to become solo scriptura in application.

You're repeating the line of thought that has been imparted to you by members of certain denominations The Apocryphal books are not like the rest of the Bible and, although placed with the Old Testament, were not accepted as scripture by the Jews of the early Christian era. It's from them that we Christians get most of our Bible, you know.

And these books don't teach any essential doctrine of Christians although some fleeting images from the Apocrypha have been used to prop up some doctrines derived mainly through legend and tradition.

In the 16th Century, the Reformers made clear that these books are not inspired as the rest of the Bible is...but they continued in use and are still read in the worship services of many Protestant churches. The Catholic Church, meanwhile, ALSO expelled some of the Apocrypha on its own. To start off with the notion that they always were seen as being inspired in the way that Christians believe the Gospels are is a mistake.

 

[Job8]

It seems like the only Christian tradition that takes a hard stance against the apocryphal books is the Reformed tradition.

That's only because the Lord Jesus Christ did not recognize this group of writings as Scripture, nor the apostles, and neither did Jerome who wrote the Vulgate, nor the translators of the Authorized Version (even though they included it in 1611). The 24 books of the Hebrew Tanakh are quite sufficient, but those who simply wish to read the Apocrypha as literature are free to do so.

 

[Job8]

The New Testament come from the Church, not the Church from the New Testament.

The New Testament comes from the Holy Spirit, not the Church.

 

[Job8]

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

In that case don't use the term *deuterocanonical* (second canon). Simply call it the Apocrypha. There are some interesting legends in there.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You're repeating the line of thought that has been imparted to you by members of certain denominations

No, this is my own thought process.

The Apocryphal books are not like the rest of the Bible and, although placed with the Old Testament, were not accepted as scripture by the Jews of the early Christian era. It's from them that we Christians get most of our Bible, you know.

The Jewish notion is irrelevant, in light of the marcionism heresy.

And these books don't teach any essential doctrine of Christians although some fleeting images from the Apocrypha have been used to prop up some doctrines derived mainly through legend and tradition.

They don't teach any of your essential doctrines, and do not fit in with sola scriptura. The currently popular view of scripture is not historical, to revise the canon to support it, doesn't prove the argument.

In the 16th Century, the Reformers made clear that these books are not inspired as the rest of the Bible is...but they continued in use and are still read in the worship services of many Protestant churches. The Catholic Church, meanwhile, ALSO expelled some of the Apocrypha on its own. To start off with the notion that they always were seen as being inspired in the way that Christians believe the Gospels are is a mistake.

Based on your previous arguments, I sense some historical revisionism, and while considering what you've said in future research I cannot accept it at present.
.
The main problem is, that people have idolized scripture, and in doing so have removed books that give a picture of what it was like for the Assyrian exiles from Israel.
.
If the church can arbitrarily remove books, it just sets a bad example ... that's all.