The Apocrypha: Does it belong in the Bible?

[RichWh1]

The question should be “were the writings of the Apocrypha inspired or not? If so how can we know? If not how can we know?

 

[Albion]

The question should be “were the writings of the Apocrypha inspired or not? If so how can we know? If not how can we know?

:hiphiphooray: He gets it!!!!

 

[Albion]

btw I said never said advice, I said that the book of Maccabees does not 'advise' prayers for the dead to get out of purgatory

I don't see the difference there, Andrew, but the fact is that Protestants DO refer to II Maccabees and point out to Catholics that it does not support the theory of Purgatory. It also does not tell us what the Jews generally or collectively thought about the matter.

Of course, this referral doesn't mean that the book is part of the Old Testament, which is what we all have been talking about here.

 

[Andrew]

The question should be “were the writings of the Apocrypha inspired or not? If so how can we know? If not how can we know?

We know because Jews and early Christians accepted them as scripture, it was considered inspired so how can you just take books away from canon?
The Greek Septuagint was translated from an earlier canon Hebrew text by Jews for Jews who came back from babylonian exile and had lost their hebrew tongue.
This was the first ever translation of the OT, THESE books WERE original hebrew canon that Jesus and the Apostles read.
We are gentiles, the main reason we use the OT is for references, the NT gospel is the saving gospel, but we must never assume the OT is now "uninspired" just because we use the OT for references and understanding of Gods dealing with his people.
Gentiles back in the days of the Apostles had no scrolls, they had no bible, they didn't know Hebrew, the Gospel was preached to them by Paul who spoke many languages.
Fast forward and thanks to the printing press and translators (who were persecuted mind you) the NT as well as the OT is now available to every tongue throughout the world.

Like I said in my first post, if it was good enough for the Jews and early Christians it's good enough for me.
They did not treat these books as secular or uninspired, just like we don't consider the OT compared to the NT as secular or uninspired.
According to the NT verses I posted earlier, Jesus and Stephen the Martyr had read the original Hebrew text that the Septuagint was translated from, and the Septuagint has many extra books that aren't found in the later masoretic text.

Is the OT inspired? Of course it is but because some of these books were not quoted directly it doesn't mean they should be dropped from the canon.

Books not mentioned in the NT
-------------
Judges
Ruth
Ezra
Esther
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Lamentations
Obadiah
Zephaniah
------------

 

[Andrew]

I don't see the difference there, Andrew, but the fact is that Protestants DO refer to II Maccabees and point out to Catholics that it does not support the theory of Purgatory. It also does not tell us what the Jews generally or collectively thought about the matter.

Of course, this referral doesn't mean that the book is part of the Old Testament, which is what we all have been talking about here.

But according to the greek translation it was canon.

 

[Albion]

We know because Jews and early Christians accepted them as scripture, it was considered inspired so how can you just take books away from canon?

How many times does it need to be said that the Jews were in substantial disagreement about that, not united on these books at all, and the Christians accepted them only provisionally until both Catholics and Protestants in the 16th century removed some or all of them?

 

[Josiah]

The question should be “were the writings of the Apocrypha inspired or not? If so how can we know? If not how can we know?

WHICH Apocrypha?


But yes, you get to the other issue (so far, evaded).... Okay, so some folks had access some books. Does that indicate they regarded them as canonical (the norma normans for disputed dogmas among us)? Does that mean they regarded them as equal in status and function to say the Pentetuch (for the Jews) or the Epistles of Paul for Christians? I love the book, "Boys in the Boat." Read it more than most Christians have the Bible. Does that mean ergo I regard it as Scripture, as inerrant, as divinely inspired. as the norma normans in the arbitration of disputed dogma among Christians?

 

[Andrew]

How many times does it need to be said that the Jews were in substantial disagreement about that, not united on these books at all, and the Christians accepted them only provisionally until both Catholics and Protestants in the 16th century removed some or all of them?

I'm sorry but that's not what historical documents suggest. The fact that these books were not only translated from Hebrew but were in full circulation and without any controversy suggest that for a good period of time they were accepted as scripture long after the churches were established.
That's fine that you consider these books "secular" but historical documents agree that they were acknowledged as scripture from Jewish and early Church fathers accounts. It would have been blasphemy to translate uninspired text into Hebrew scripture, yet there is no record of a great controversy or Jewish upheaval and rejection, nothing, no complaints until later.. I haven't check wikipedias sources yet but to I was searching for an answer to "why the Jews rejected the apocrypha" on google and the only thing that isn't based on modern opinion is the Wikipedia.
It suggest that they rejected it after Christianity began to grow and the Rabbis were no too happy with having greek speaking gentiles reading their books because they wanted to be distinguished from non-Jews thus they denied the Septuagint greek translation all together.

 

[Albion]

I'm sorry but that's not what historical documents suggest.

Suit yourself.

It looks like that is what you're determined to do anyway, and there are too many errors in your post for me to want to go over each of them for nothing.

 

[RichWh1]

WHICH Apocrypha?


But yes, you get to the other issue (so far, evaded).... Okay, so some folks had access some books. Does that indicate they regarded them as canonical (the norma normans for disputed dogmas among us)? Does that mean they regarded them as equal in status and function to say the Pentetuch (for the Jews) or the Epistles of Paul for Christians? I love the book, "Boys in the Boat." Read it more than most Christians have the Bible. Does that mean ergo I regard it as Scripture, as inerrant, as divinely inspired. as the norma normans in the arbitration of disputed dogma among Christians?

I would say all
Apocryphal writings, not just a few. Who determines what is and is not inspired?

 

[Josiah]

I would say all

All WHAT?

Apocryphal writings, not just a few.

Which writings? The ones the Coptic Church accepts? The ones the Syrian Orthodox Chiurch accepts? The ones the Greek Orthodox Church accepts? The ones the post-Trent Catholic Church accepts? The ones Martin Luther choose to include in his German translation of the Bible? The ones the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church lists? What about Psalm 151 or 152? And what about the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the NT? Which books are "the Apocrypha?"

Who determines what is and is not inspired?

Excellent question! But if we are going to insist "Everyone accepted that Psalm 152 was EQUAL to the Pentetuch in terms of divine inspiration, inerrency and function as the norma normans" then I guess they'd need to how that "everyone" did so and "everyone" had the authority to determine that about Psalm 152.


SOME denominations have dogmatically declared what books are to be "in" the Bible: The RCC did that in the 15th and 16 Centuries, the Reformed and Anglican churches did that in the 16th Century. The LDS did that in the 19th Century. Thing is: None of them agree with any but themselves. Others have never done this officially but have by consensus (generally the Eastern Orthodox fall into this) but they don't agree with each other. AND additionally, they don't all agree on the status OR function of these "books" (WHICHEVER "these" refers to - not one church agrees with any other on that issue). Are they equal to say the Book of Numbers or Epistle to the Romans? Or do they have some OTHER function and perhaps some OTHER status? No agreement on that has ever existed. And you are right: WHO says? Why did the King of England or John Calvin or the RCC meeting in Florence or Trent, or the LDS meeting in Salt Lake City have the authority to just say- and thus it just is so?

 

[Andrew]

Suit yourself.

It looks like that is what you're determined to do anyway, and there are too many errors in your post for me to want to go over each of them for nothing.

No I am welcoming argument, I admit when I stand corrected, if you can change my mind of the point I make in post 75 that the NT favors the Septuagint based Hebrew Text rather than the Masoretic based Hebrew text then I'll reconsider and accept the Masoretic (without "apocryphal" writings), until then I am convinced that the Hebrew Text that the Greek Septuagint was translated from in it's entirety is OT scripture canon.

 

[Andrew]

From Wikipedia

Jewish useEdit

See also:*Development of the Hebrew Bible canon

The pre-Christian Jews*Philo*and*Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text.[11][36]*Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the*Qumran Scrolls*as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time.

Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the Septuagint. The earliest*gentileChristians used the Septuagint out of necessity, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians*could not read Hebrew. The association of the Septuagint with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[20]Instead, Jews used Hebrew or Aramaic*Targum*manuscripts later compiled by the*Masoretes*and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of*Onkelos*and*Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[37]

 

[Andrew]

All WHAT?





Which writings? The ones the Coptic Church accepts? The ones the Syrian Orthodox Chiurch accepts? The ones the Greek Orthodox Church accepts? The ones the post-Trent Catholic Church accepts? The ones Martin Luther choose to include in his German translation of the Bible? The ones the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church lists? What about Psalm 151 or 152? And what about the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the NT? Which books are "the Apocrypha?"






Excellent question! But if we are going to insist "Everyone accepted that Psalm 152 was EQUAL to the Pentetuch in terms of divine inspiration, inerrency and function as the norma normans" then I guess they'd need to how that "everyone" did so and "everyone" had the authority to determine that about Psalm 152.


SOME denominations have dogmatically declared what books are to be "in" the Bible: The RCC did that in the 15th and 16 Centuries, the Reformed and Anglican churches did that in the 16th Century. The LDS did that in the 19th Century. Thing is: None of them agree with any but themselves. Others have never done this officially but have by consensus (generally the Eastern Orthodox fall into this) but they don't agree with each other. AND additionally, they don't all agree on the status OR function of these "books" (WHICHEVER "these" refers to - not one church agrees with any other on that issue). Are they equal to say the Book of Numbers or Epistle to the Romans? Or do they have some OTHER function and perhaps some OTHER status? No agreement on that has ever existed. And you are right: WHO says? Why did the King of England or John Calvin or the RCC meeting in Florence or Trent, or the LDS meeting in Salt Lake City have the authority to just say- and thus it just is so?

Josiah none of those churches or controversy surrounding them has anything to do with the the contents of the Greek Septuagint, this WAS the known canon of the OT recorded from an official Hebrew text otherwise it would have never been authored and agreed with by the Jews. There was no controversy with them so whatever books are included in the Septuagint (that our church fathers and Jesus himself sided with [post 75] ) should be recognized as scripture just as they were at the time of Christ.
Any other books outside of that are whatever you wish to call them, but why we made the switch to the masoretic which is proven to not have been from the same source as the Septuagint is beyond me.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah none of those churches or controversy surrounding them has anything to do with the the contents of the Greek Septuagint, this WAS the known canon of the OT recorded from an official Hebrew text otherwise it would have never been authored and agreed with by the Jews. There was no controversy with them so whatever books are included in the Septuagint (that our church fathers and Jesus himself sided with [post 75] ) should be recognized as scripture just as they were at the time of Christ.
Any other books outside of that are whatever you wish to call them, but why we made the switch to the masoretic which is proven to not have been from the same source as the Septuagint is beyond me.

Friend,

The issue here is the Apocrypha - what books ARE such and what STATUS/FUNCTION do they have?

I find no reason whatsoever to assume that WHATEVER books may or may not have been in the LXX (including Psalm 152, etc.) THUS were accepted by all Jews and Christians as divine Scripture, divinely inspired, inerrant, norma normans, equal in every way and sense with the Pentetuch or the Gospel of Luke or the Episple to the Romans. I fail to see the logic there. And it makes me wonder: Why then did the Jews OFFICIALLY at the Council of Jamnia in 90AD completely, totally REJECT all the books in the LXX but for the content of 39 books (by modern western count)? Why the issue of St. Jerome? Wny do we see struggles over the Book of the Revelation of St.John for example (which finally was accepted) while the suggestion is the EVERYONE accepted Psalm 155 (which I understand IS in the LXX)? Lost me, brother.....


I accept that the early Christians did not officially follow the Jews in repudiating and entirely rejecting a LOT of the books in the LXX. I accept TO THIS DAY there is a lack of consensus about WHICH books we should SOMEHOW consider for SOMETHING. But I'm not so passionate since I don't see anyone actually doing anything with them..... Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and sometimes Lutherans including a reading from SOME such book in the lectionary.... that's about it. Sure, you could say the same about the Book of 3 John or Jude, but at least we know what those books are and there's been absolute 100% consensus around those for at least 1700 years. No one questions their status or appropriate function.


.

 

[Andrew]

Friend,

The issue here is the Apocrypha - what books ARE such and what STATUS/FUNCTION do they have?

I find no reason whatsoever to assume that WHATEVER books may or may not have been in the LXX (including Psalm 152, etc.) THUS were accepted by all Jews and Christians as divine Scripture, divinely inspired, inerrant, norma normans, equal in every way and sense with the Pentetuch or the Gospel of Luke or the Episple to the Romans. I fail to see the logic there. And it makes me wonder: Why then did the Jews OFFICIALLY at the Council of Jamnia in 90AD completely, totally REJECT all the books in the LXX but for the content of 39 books (by modern western count)? Why the issue of St. Jerome? Wny do we see struggles over the Book of the Revelation of St.John for example (which finally was accepted) while the suggestion is the EVERYONE accepted Psalm 155 (which I understand IS in the LXX)? Lost me, brother.....


I accept that the early Christians did not officially follow the Jews in repudiating and entirely rejecting a LOT of the books in the LXX. I accept TO THIS DAY there is a lack of consensus about WHICH books we should SOMEHOW consider for SOMETHING. But I'm not so passionate since I don't see anyone actually doing anything with them..... Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and sometimes Lutherans including a reading from SOME such book in the lectionary.... that's about it. Sure, you could say the same about the Book of 3 John or Jude, but at least we know what those books are and there's been absolute 100% consensus around those for at least 1700 years. No one questions their status or appropriate function.


.

You are asking for status but isn't the OT a reference book for us gentiles?
I mean the NT is really all we need, Revelation says that there will be those during the tribulation that will be saved by holding the testimony of Jesus..
So we shouldn't be picking favorites but instead we should hold them as equal just as Jesus and the Apostles must have held them. I mean it's historical fact that these books where well circulated by that time.
I can live with missing numbers in the masoretic that don't agree with Acts, it does not effect the Gospel of Christ.. but if we are to consider the OT as gentiles for understanding and reference like the early gentile Christians did, then why did we start picking favorites and and siding with what Christ rejecting Jews had to say?
We know that Jesus never spoke about these books being "hidden", in fact he observed a holiday based on the maccabees!
The Apostle Paul only warned us of new and additional scripture (gnostic) being 'brought' into the church but he never condemned any books that have been circulating (including "those" books)..
Probably because he treated them as OT scripture which the gentiles were ignorant to and the Gospel of Christ was his main concern..
Indeed all Christian denominations agree to the NT canon!
I just don't see why these OT books were later questioned and some were dropped just because the Jews who despised greek Christians reading their books rejected the greek translation.

 

[Andrew]

Note: I'm creating an off shoot thread based on post 75 since no body cares to discuss the biblical quotation anomalies I pointed out, it's better to take baby steps when discussing textual criticism, so by all means continue contributing to the OPs topic.

 

[Arsenios]

:hiphiphooray: He gets it!!!!

Great post!

Who decides and how indeed!!

But the Septuagint is a no-brainer...

A Jewish 2nd century BC product...

Unquestionably a part of the OT Canon...


Arsenios

 

[Andrew]

Great post!

Who decides and how indeed!!


Arsenios

The NT stood firm as canon throughout Christian history, we all agree! That's something to rejoice and celebrate!

My determination to talk about these OT books however is due to the fact that I have no denomination, and I have no prejudice towards any, but I feel that by churches having a conflict of interest of OT books, it's causing them more harm than good.
I would feel more at ease if we all respected these same books that our early Christian sisters and brothers did with the same reverence that they had, by rejecting these books it makes them look like idiots because they talked about them so much, and now if you quote from an apocryphal book at the pulpit, the congregation would question your ministry and start looking for another church.
I just find it unnerving that my defense of these books are frustrating to so many here when if I were a 1rst century to 4th century Christian this would not be the case.

Im going to start growing my beard and I'm going to walk 44 miles to the nearest EOC I guess lol (wow what a distance of separation between our churches! )

 

[Josiah]

Y
I just don't see why these OT books were later questioned and some were dropped just because the Jews who despised greek Christians reading their books rejected the greek translation.

WHICH books are "these?" The "set" found in the LXX? The set found in the Coptic Orthodox Church's Bible? The Syrian Orthodox Church's? The Greek Orthodox Church? The set Luther included in his German translation of the Bible? The set included by the Catholic Church at the Council of Florence in the 15th Century? The set the Anglican Church included in the 16th Century? WHICH books are "these?"


IF the Jews accepted these books (whichever "THESE" are) as fully canonical - equal in status and function to the Pentetuch for example - when it's hard to understand the Council of Jamnia in 90AD, a very uncontroversal Council with no protest, that eliminated all books (from any status or function) that are not found in the the OT of John Calvin. How does the Council of Jamnia prove everyone regarded "these" (whichever "these" is) books as equal to the Pentetuch and the Epistle to the Romans?


And the early Christians at times read and used some of "these" (whichever "these" are).... but there's no evidence they used them MORE than other books or even as much as others; no Church Father has been quoted defending "these" books as necessary for the Gospel as you seem to suggest.

Indeed all Christian denominations agree to the NT canon!

Largely true, although Apocrypha is a term that includes dozens and dozens of Christian books, too. The Revelation of Peter for example is by some considered a part of these. And you comment is not completely true; for example, for over 1000 years, many Catholic Bibles contained 28 books (one MORE than yours), the extra was "The Epistle to the Leodiceans." Catholics will state that Luther "removed" a book from the NT in his German translation - this is the book they mean; and yes, he DID NOT include it (but then he held it was never "in" so he did not "remove" it). Even after the Councils of Florence and Trent did not specifically mention it, it was STILL in a lot of Catholic Bibles, well into the 18th Century. Yes, even without an Ecumenical Council , there did - eventually - develop a consensus on the NT. But that's not the case with the OT. No one seems to know what "these" books are - there is no consensus. And what is their status/function? Well - the EOC has one view, the Anglican Church another, the Catholic Church another.... but none of them actually USE "these" for much of anything.




.