What is the main reason why the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?

[Josiah]

66.

It's 80.

I gave you the OFFICIAL, FORMAL list specifically (in black and white words) found in the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles that lists 80.
I gave you a link that shows a photo of the actual Table of Content of the AV Bible from 1611. If you count the books, there are 80.

As I have so consistently STRESSED throughout this thread, specially exactly 14 of those are regarded as DEUTEROcanonical and not canonical, but they are in the tome, there are listed as Books.

It names 66 as holy Scripture and name 14 others that are NOT scripture.

Where did I claim that the Anglican Church accepts or rejects anything as "Scripture?" Where does the thread title or opening post speak of "Scriptures"?


What I've said is that the Anglican Church accepts 14 of the 80 NOT as canonical but as DEUTEROcanonical. I have said this consistently. I have STRESSED this distinction consistently. I have often stated DEUTERO with all caps and/or in emboldened print. I have defined the word - several times. I NEVER REMOTELY said it considers all 80 as "Scripture" and I have NEVER said it considers all 80 as "canonical" (I've STRESSED the exact opposite - over and over and over). But it does list 80 books (not 79, not 81) and the AV does have 80 books in the tome. I realize some publishing houses in the USA only put 66 books in the KJV tome but that's because most of those who purchase KJV in the USA are not Anglicans and don't want to pay for those books.

Again with the verbal slight of hand. I noted you switch to "tome" after you realized that you might not be able to defend a claim of the Anglican Bibleconsisting of 80 books.

I have used the word "tome" consistently in this thread - at least nine times. By at least post 8. The Bible IS a tome.

And Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles DOES list 80 books. YOU YOURSELF quoted it as did I and YOU YOURSELF proved it listed 80 books. Just as I have stated. EXACTLY as you proved. You yourself verbatim QUOTED the Anglican Church to prove my point correct.

Now, I have STRESSED over and over - very consistently, very clearly - that specifically (by name) FOURTEEN (not 13, not 15) of these are DEUTEROcanonical, NOT canonical. Just as you proved to be true. But they ARE listed, they ARE present, they ARE in the Book. Officially, formally. Look at the actual Table of Content from the 1611 AV Bible - and count the books listed; friend, it's 80. Read Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles (that both of us have quoted, verbatim, to prove this point) and yup, there are 8-0 books listed. Yes, as I have so often stressed - very consistently, very clearly, even with all caps and emboldened words - NOT all of them are embraced as canonical, specifically 14 are DEUTEROcanonical, but they ARE in the tome. Just as I stated. Just as you have proven to be true - while insisting it's "bogus" and worse.

Nonsense. There are 80 books that are REFFERED TO

This is simply not the case.

The Table of Content to the 1611 AV Bible does NOT just "reference" 14 books, it CONTAINS them.

Article VI of the Thirty Nine Articles does not just REFERENCE 14 titles as if they were popular Christmas carols never to be sung or listing major cities in the UK. The topic is the Bible. It calls these 14 "Books" (with a capitol B)

14 of them are explicitly said to not be canonical

FOURTEEN! Not 7, not 8, not 12, not 13, not 15.... yup, it's a UNIQUE number. List for us the other denominations that number "them" as exactly, specifically FOURTEEN? Or is this something unique to the Anglican Church?


Who said the Anglican Church accepted "them" as canonical? Certainly not me, I have STRESSED as boldly and clearly as possible that that is NOT the case.




I'm sincerely amazed by our exchanged...... puzzled. And dismayed by the tone being conveyed....IMO, you have simply totally and badly misunderstood my posts.... I've tried to be very clear and believe I have been..... so I'm puzzled by this. But I hold this is the case. Sincerely, I don't think we even disagree on this - at all - and I think that's confirmed if one but reads what I've posted. I would LOVE to answer any questions you may have.... clarify anything I've actually said .... we may not agree but I hope we can be reconciled. This is not typical of either of us. It's not what either of us desire for CH.




A blessed Advent to you and yours...



.

 

[Josiah]

The Anglican Church also accepts SOME of the Deutercanonical books. More than the RCC, more than the EOC... it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. Officially since the late 16th Century. But none of the Deuterocanonical books are accepted as canonical but only as Deutercanonical (secondary, under) - as important to read and of great value but not as canon for doctriine

,

THIS is what I posted in post #2. Nowhere has anyone offered anything that it is incorrect.

NO ONE mentioned "Scripture." Not me. Not the title of the thread. Not the opening post.

The Anglican Church in its official, formal, binding Thirty-Nine Articles lists 80 books - a unique number embrace by no other denomination - with specifically 14 (not 13 or 15) as DEUTEROcanonical, as I noted. The Table of Contents of the official, 1611, Authorized Version Bible, lists 80 books as the contents of the Bible: 39 in the OT, 14 in the "Apocrypha" (DEUTEROcanonical), and 27 in the NT. If we apply simple math, that's a total of exactly 80 books in the AV Bible - 14 of which are DEUTEROcanonical.

The official, formal, binding 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, in Article VI, lists exactly 80 books. A unique number found in no other denomination. 14 of which are noted as DEUTEROcanonical. 14 being a unique number, embraced in no way whatsoever in any other denomination.

DEUTEROcanonical means esteemed, worthly to read, worthly to be in the Lectionary and read in church and used as sermon texts, but NOT as the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice, for doctrine. DEUTERO means "secondary, under, lesser." The Thirty-Nine Articles states such about this UNIQUE "set" of exactly 14 (specially named) as I noted.

Nothing offered has suggested what I said is anything other than accurate.




.

 

[Josiah]

What is the main reason why Catholics believe it does belong?

[MENTION=873]NathanH83[/MENTION]


Here's the problem with your question and the thread..... With all DUE RESPECT to what I'm SURE you meant as a valid, direct question....


1. You use a (very loaded) term "Apocrypha" as if there is some universal understanding of what you are talking about. THERE IS NOT. Of the claimed 10,000 denominations on the planet right now, there are not even TWO that understand that term the same way, as referring to the SAME block of material. Of those who in some sense accept some books that Calvin did not accept in the 16th Century, NO TWO agree on WHICH books that includes. Before we can even begin to discuss "the Apocrypha" (and I'm not sure I'd use that very loaded, rarther negative term), you'd need to define WHAT books you are talking about.


2. You left open HOW they might "belong." As historical? As worthy to be read? As qualifying to be in the Lectionary and as sermon texts? To be used as SUPPORTIVE but not normative? To be used as the rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice? Belong... HOW? In what capacity?



The Roman Catholic Church now accepts 7 books (a number NO OTHER DENOMINATION ON THE PLANET IN ALL WORLD HISTORY AGREES WITH) are equal to the other 66 in every sense, but it did not say so until the Council of Florence (unofficially) and the Council of Trent (officially) in the 16th Century. But I know of no denomination other than that single one that holds to that. Why? Because it itself says THEY specifically are, that's why. There is no other answer in that case. Sorry....it's not complex,there isn't more to say than that.

Calvin dismissed ALL of them. I think mostly because he felt they lacked ecumenical support and often contain problemmatic things. If you want to know why Reformed Christians (a very small minority of Protestants) don't accept them, you'd be wise to go to some Reformed/Calvinist site to discover why. But that would be CALVINIST/REFORMED reasons - and would NOT be universal or even a Protestant perspective (Calvinists being a small subgroup of Protestant).

Lutherans don't take a stance (officially, anyway) about ANY so called "Apocraphya" books. Lutherans may not forbid you to read any Christian book (even weird ones like the Left Behind books) but they might be hesitant to call such the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the rule/canon/norma normans for the arbitration of dogma. Lutherans would be likely to point you to the "66" for that. But the Lutheran Confessions are silent on that issue, the Lutheran Fathers holding such an official, formal declaration requires an ecumenical council not the opinion of some man (like Calvin or Smith) or some denomination (like Lutheran or Catholic or Anglican). In any case, the point seems moot. Except for ONE denomination CLAIMING one of those books teaches it's own unique new dogma of Purgatory (and it does not), no one ever points to any of those "books" (whatever "they" are) normatively. Kind of a moot point. No one uses them normatively so whether they are normative or not has never really been an issue. Now, is The Book of Mormon normative, THAT gets some attention because we DO have some pointing to THAT book normatively. But not Psalm 151.




- Josiah



.

 

[Andrew]

Simple the books of the "Apocrypha" are the ones called the "Apocrypha".. you can find them in Catholic bibles and east orthodox bibles...

Here's my defense of these books
the NT Gospel to Christians is like the OT Torah to the Jews, the OT for Christians includes not only the Torah but the "wisdom and other writings" (Tanach)... For the Jews there were no scriptural debate over canon, even when they included "sacred books" during the so called "400 years of silence" before Christ...
Jews accepted them as "wisdom and other writings" along with every other books besides the first 5 books of Moses (Torah).. Not until Christians began using their OT to witness to them did the Jews replace the greek translations with a newer one consisting of a so called "canon" which was nothing more than the Torah and the rest of Tanach minus the 400 years leading up to Christ..
Why did they do this?
Why did the Jews drop these books that lead to Christians dropping them out?
To appear superior, the early Christians were not aware of this change in the synagogues and why would they be?
The Pharisees and scribes had replaced the high priest of the Temple (Sadducees) and authorised these changes in the synagogues because to the Jew even today, only the Torah in Hebrew is the final authority, all other books are just "extras".. We know that those "extras" contained prophecy that had come to pass, but the Pharisees did not want to hear it especially when the later books leading up to Christs arrival included not only prophecy but even challenged the Torah, ie the belief in Resurrection, the belief of working on the Sabbath, and the prophecy of Alexandria being fulfilled during these times... better off leaving him out of the picture since it gave Christians the OT, they literally have a holiday to mourn the greek translation.
They had no problem adding the oral translations (Talmud) and kicking out certain books from the Tanach.. To the Pharisee it was their job not only to preserve the Torah but to save the Talmud so the new generations of Jews don't stray into Christianity. By studying the Torah alone they can get away with adding and subtracting "other writings" and they frankly did not care so much of a coming Messiah, even today it's just not that important or as important as the Torah.
Fast forward and the prophesies linked to Jesus according the Jews can not be so, they altered their wordings and genealogies long ago to refute Christ and for the Jew, it worked.. They even successfully through time replaced our OT with the Masoretic, using their history to convince the Christians "see, we never included those books, you Christians have it wrong", thus the term "Apocrypha" was coined and now you yourself doubt these books should belong in "the other writings" (outside the Torah)... With Rome having gone astray it was a blessing a reform took place but they also made the mistake of believing that Rome got carried away with including these extra books..
Thus new canons were set which threw these books out the window completely but claimed them to be edifying, which just means they are not divine scripture so not really worth reading.. The Jews have their Torah and we have the Gospel, but God gave the OT to gentiles through Alexandria just in time for the arrival of Christ, that's a God send IMO.
When you ask what is "canon" it does not mean that because canons were set that somehow early Christians were wrong, they had Gods words to testify and witness to the Jews.. not only that but they were battling gnostics at the same time and being persecuted before Constantine who was a pagan, made Christianity the official religion of Rome.
Setting a canon was meant to weed out gnosticism from the NT, the OT had no reason to be meddled with after Christ.
Our early church fathers and original university of Christians were not ignorant to accept these books as part of the OT, they obviously wrote about them without prejudice.. and if it weren't for God giving gentiles a head start by providing them the OT, well how were they to witness prophecy to Jews or even understand who God was and what his word was or even prophesy for themselves?
Left with only the Torah as the OT in Hebrew it would be rather difficult to discern the prophesy of Christ, obviously God handed us the OT and not the Jews, so why do we omit what early Christians were reading?

 

[Lamb]

The Anglican churches do not accept any of the Apocrypha as inspired writings or as part of the Bible. We do accept that there is something to be learned from these books, as is the case with all sorts of religious writings, but that's all.

The comment about the church accepting some of them or of accepting MORE of the Apocrypha than either the RCC or EOC, both of which accept as scripture almost all of them, is a surprise..

And as for the idea that Anglicans have a "unique" Bible, that's not true, unless that was an unusual way of saying that the most popular Bible translation--the King James Version--was translated by the Church of England. But even if that were the meaning, this translation is used by almost every denomination, so it cannot be considered unique to the Anglican churches.

I think there is a misunderstanding in this thread stemming from the very first page. Josiah probably should have used the word "include" instead of accept since that seems to be an offensive term to describe how Anglicans allow their members to read from the Apocrypha.

But also I think the misunderstanding also is because Josiah DID go on to state that the Apocrypha was not canon as seen in post 2 "But none of the Deuterocanonical books are accepted as canonical but only as Deutercanonical (secondary, under) - as important to read and of great value but not as canon for doctrine"

 

[Josiah]

Here's the problem with your question and the thread..... With all DUE RESPECT to what I'm SURE you meant as a valid, direct question....


1. You use a (very loaded) term "Apocrypha" as if there is some universal understanding of what you are talking about. THERE IS NOT. Of the claimed 10,000 denominations on the planet right now, there are not even TWO that understand that term the same way, as referring to the SAME block of material. Of those who in some sense accept some books that Calvin did not accept in the 16th Century, NO TWO agree on WHICH books that includes. Before we can even begin to discuss "the Apocrypha" (and I'm not sure I'd use that very loaded, rarther negative term), you'd need to define WHAT books you are talking about.


2. You left open HOW they might "belong." As historical? As worthy to be read? As qualifying to be in the Lectionary and as sermon texts? To be used as SUPPORTIVE but not normative? To be used as the rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice? Belong... HOW? In what capacity?



The Roman Catholic Church now accepts 7 books (a number NO OTHER DENOMINATION ON THE PLANET IN ALL WORLD HISTORY AGREES WITH) are equal to the other 66 in every sense, but it did not say so until the Council of Florence (unofficially) and the Council of Trent (officially) in the 16th Century. But I know of no denomination other than that single one that holds to that. Why? Because it itself says THEY specifically are, that's why. There is no other answer in that case. Sorry....it's not complex,there isn't more to say than that.

Calvin dismissed ALL of them. I think mostly because he felt they lacked ecumenical support and often contain problemmatic things. If you want to know why Reformed Christians (a very small minority of Protestants) don't accept them, you'd be wise to go to some Reformed/Calvinist site to discover why. But that would be CALVINIST/REFORMED reasons - and would NOT be universal or even a Protestant perspective (Calvinists being a small subgroup of Protestant).

Lutherans don't take a stance (officially, anyway) about ANY so called "Apocraphya" books. Lutherans may not forbid you to read any Christian book (even weird ones like the Left Behind books) but they might be hesitant to call such the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the rule/canon/norma normans for the arbitration of dogma. Lutherans would be likely to point you to the "66" for that. But the Lutheran Confessions are silent on that issue, the Lutheran Fathers holding such an official, formal declaration requires an ecumenical council not the opinion of some man (like Calvin or Smith) or some denomination (like Lutheran or Catholic or Anglican). In any case, the point seems moot. Except for ONE denomination CLAIMING one of those books teaches it's own unique new dogma of Purgatory (and it does not), no one ever points to any of those "books" (whatever "they" are) normatively. Kind of a moot point. No one uses them normatively so whether they are normative or not has never really been an issue. Now, is The Book of Mormon normative, THAT gets some attention because we DO have some pointing to THAT book normatively. But not Psalm 151.




.

Simple the books of the "Apocrypha" are the ones called the "Apocrypha".. you can find them in Catholic bibles and east orthodox bibles...

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION], one of the problems in this discussion is the the Catholic "Apocrypha" is not the same as the (several different) Eastern Orthodox "Apocryphas" which are different again from the Anglican "Apocrypha" which is different again from Luther's "Apocrypha." NONE of the "Apocryphas" are the same. It's difficult to discuss this "set" of books when there is no "set" of books - every single denomination that accepts some kind of "Apocrypha" on some level in some way or some things, every single one of them has a DIFFERENT "Apocrypha." You yourself speak of "them" and "these" but never share what "them" are. We often never get past this issue....


Let's say there's a discussion about whether "these" are good colleges. The first mandated thing before we can even begin the discussion is the state EXACTLY which colleges are we discussing: THESE, NOT THESE. If we could have all those who embrace books beyond the 66 tell us EXACTLY WHAT books they ARE and are NOT embracing, then we can discuss them. But Andrew, here's the reality: No two denominations on the planet in nearly 2000 years have the same "these" NEVER has even two denominations on the planet agreed on this.

And then there's issue # 2 in the quote above.... that never gets addressed, either.

Why did the Jews drop these books that lead to Christians dropping them out?

One of MANY problems with this, friend, is that books need to be IN before they can be DROPPED. (And, of course, again, you didn't tell us what "these books" are).



Here's what I learned in my class on this:

Prior to the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, there was NEVER ANYTHING whatsoever from anything Jewish or Hebrew about what is and is not Scripture. Indeed, in Jesus' day, by PURE CUSTOM (nothing official, nothing formal, nothing binding) some Jews only accepted the first 5 books of the OT as Scripture. SOME accepted SOME of the prophetic books in our OT, SOME accepted SOME of the wisdom books - but even some of these placed them UNDER the first 5 (as DEUTEROcanonical). Bottom line: There was NO consensus in practice among the Jews and NOTHING WHATSOEVER official or binding or formal, nothing at all. It was all very loose. Now, some Christians (not Jews!!!) will point to the LXX as some kind of official declaration of some unknown Jewish authority AT THAT TIME, but there is zero evidence of that - none. It is likely these were books Jews READ (thus the translation) but NOTHING to indicate they were embraced as the inerrant, inscripturated, words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for doctrine.... SOME unknown corpus of such may simply have been USED by SOME Jews in SOME places - much as some use various hymns on Sunday or various liturgies on a Sunday. To USE or READ something doesn't suggest such is regarded as CANONICAL (the binding norma normans for dogma, the verbally inspired and inerrant written words of God). There is absolutely NOTHING in history, from any Jewish rabbis (then or now) that remotely suggests the LXX was some sort of formal declaration of what IS and IS NOT canonical books of inscripturated words of God.

Better is to see how Jesus and the NT penmen used Scripture. And.... there is ZERO evidence any quoted any book that anyone considers today as "Apocrypha." Yup, you will find lots of websites that TRY to show this is the case with 3 or 4 Apocrypha books (only 3 or 4) BUT if you read those, you'll see NEVER is such quoted - as canonical or otherwise; they simply are saying "this statement seems a lot like that statement in a book some now consider "Apocrypha." But that's irrelevant, just because two sentences are similar doesn't mean anyone is QUOTING something and QUOTING such as canonical. The reality is, Jesus Himself quotes Scripture 50 times - but of the ones we can identify (and that's far from all), none of them are in any Apocrypha book. And of course, if we used this rubric to determine what is and is not OT CANON, we'd reject most of the 39 since most of them are never quoted in the NT (as canon or otherwise).

In any case, there was NOTHING before 90 AD. The ONLY books where we CAN say "The Jews regarded these as canonical" would be the "Books of Moses" (as the Jews called them), the first 5 Books. We CAN say that prior to 90 AD, Jews had a Bible of at least FIVE books - but even that is purely by informal tradition. We CAN say "FIVE books were in." But there's NOTHING to show any others were. LOTS of others (probably many more than are in the LXX) were used by SOME Jews in SOME way but that is irrelevant in whether they were seen by anyone as canonical/scripture.

Jamnia changed all that. By 90AD, the Jews had developed an Authoritative aspect over the religion and (for the first time) COULD declare what is Scripture in a formal, binding, universal way. It was a very controversal issue BECAUSE there was NO consensus at all on what the JEwish Scriptures were (beyond the 5 "Books of Moses"). The whole reason for this Council was BECAUSE there was no agreed upon canon, there wer4e no books "IN" (beyond the Books of Moses) in any formal and universal way. There were Jews who accepted AND rejected MANY Books, agreement only on FIVE.

It is valid to note that CHRISTIANS had no reason to abide by the Council of Jamnia (90 AD) IN FACT, there is ZERO contemporary evidence that CHRISTIANS were even aware of it (the division was begining to solidify by then). I agree.... what the Jews decided in 90 AD is largely irrelevant to us (and so I disagree with Luther on this). BUT it is unavoidable that the Council of Jamnia was huge and important BECAUSE it's the first time in history that there was anything formal concerning what is canonical among the Jews.... there was NO consensus beyond the five Books of Moses before this, SOME Jews accepted SOME books (including some NOT in the LXX) in SOME way before that but that's largely irrelevant to what is and is not canon for the Jews and entirely irrelevant for us.



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

I think there is a misunderstanding in this thread stemming from the very first page. Josiah probably should have used the word "include" instead of accept since that seems to be an offensive term to describe how Anglicans allow their members to read from the Apocrypha.

Maybe, but it's quite obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the matter that it was more than that.

To say that the Anglicans have a separate Bible, to try to prove something with a bogus Article wrongly said to have been taken from the church's Articles of Religion, and to insist that the Bible books and the Apocrypha, the latter of which is expressly described as not part of the Bible in Anglican documents, amount to "80 books" of the Bible...is stunningly incorrect.

Worse, perhaps, is the fact that one time of correcting these grotesque misstatements should have been sufficient for anyone to respond by admitting that mistakes were made, however innocently.

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION], one of the problems in this discussion is the the Catholic "Apocrypha" is not the same as the (several different) Eastern Orthodox "Apocryphas" which are different again from the Anglican "Apocrypha" which is different again from Luther's "Apocrypha." NONE of the "Apocryphas" are the same. It's difficult to discuss this "set" of books when there is no "set" of books - every single denomination that accepts some kind of "Apocrypha" on some level in some way or some things, every single one of them has a DIFFERENT "Apocrypha." You yourself speak of "them" and "these" but never share what "them" are. We often never get past this issue....





.

I'm not surprised that Christ rejecting Jews would set up a "canon" in 90 AD... there are documents in both pre Nicene writings and Talmudic history that the Jews were not too thrilled about gentiles using books that were TAUGHT in synagogues to use to support Messianic prophesy.. so where did these books come from by 90AD when Clement of Rome wrote about them?
Christians just made them up a decade after Paul's ministry?
The greek gentiles had certain books that are now offensive to you Josiah, because they were rejected and not for the reasons you claim.. Luther according to his letters claims that 1rst Maccabees is Holy but 2nd Maccabees is trash, he was cherry picking, he never brought up the reasons you use to reject them..

I get your point tho, because only the first 5 books are canon the rest is left to the pious reader, a point I happen to agree with per Luther.. The point I am making is that the books documented and used by early Christians for the OT (the septuagint) should have never been tampered with.. I listed them before and I have also explained how certain books were parts of other books but were separated into individual books and that's why you keep bringing up different numbers of books per denomination.. Some were not separated and were for example kept in Daniel which made the book of Daniel longer and shortens the number of books.. but they are all there.
Again I reiterate that my opinion is that the greek OT should have never been cherry picked in the first place nor called "extras" unless we agree the the Torah should be canon.. Bad and mistranslations are not inspired, the Gospel message and authority has not changed, but yes our masoretic we use today is imperfect and incomplete, missing prophetic phrases, certain prophecies, missing timelines through genealogies (to prove Shem is Melchezidic and Jesus cannot be the New High Priest), the NT apparently misquotes our Masoretic, Stephen the Martyr adds 5 souls to Jacobs household, missing quotes etc.. Of course the Jews would have us believe this Masoretic as perfect so they can use the disagreements between the NT and OT, Jews today still use these fables to counter testify to Christians and sadly many Christians convert to Judaism.. This I have witnessed through many private facebook groups and it's sad... However they obviously missed the mark as the GOSPEL message is untouched and Paul himself foretold of Jews conspiring to argue genealogies and fables.. As of late many Christians are admitting that their KJV OT is not perfect and through studying early Christianity through documents and history of the Talmud plus corruptions and mistranslations it's obvious why, as I am now aware of a new Rabbinic method of gentile conversion which is Noahide Law.. This is trending and it allows Christians to reject Christ and still be redeemed and especially for doing so (rejecting Christ)..
The argument is that since God judged the world with the flood that there must have been laws or standards.. By following these seven laws you are saved, such are "stealing" because Adam and Eve stole the forbidden fruit and were banished, "murder" because Cain murdered Abel and was banished, all seven are based on Genesis.. Anyway i feel it's important to question our translations and use the "process of elimination" by "the mouths of two or three witnesses" when discerning the OT translations.. We have a massive library of ante Nicene/pre council writings to churches for edification concerning which books they read, but we also have other Jewish historians, ancient Jewish scrolls, the NT, the greek translations, who all disagree with the Masoretic timelines and quotations concerning Messianic prophesy.. But to realign the OT these days is considered HERESY, and KJVO folk will not care for it.. but you see, we have divisions and cherry pickers and a so called "Universal" church, the true university of Christians were of one accord and we still are but my oh my the prejudice against each other bothers me to no end.. The early 1rst Century Christians had a simple yet stern view on the gospel, written in greek, which is what their OT was written in.. Luke most likely translated Pauls Hebrew letters to Greek but Paul was mainly speaking to a greek audience.

I by no means want to offend your denomination nor do I care to sway you from your denominations belief, let's just be real, if I am considere

 

[Andrew]

Seems the rest of my reply was cut waaay short, perhaps some other time

 

[Josiah]

One of the problems in this discussion is the the Catholic "Apocrypha" is not the same as the (several different) Eastern Orthodox "Apocryphas" which are different again from the Anglican "Apocrypha" which is different again from Luther's "Apocrypha." NONE of the "Apocryphas" are the same. It's difficult to discuss this "set" of books when there is no "set" of books - every single denomination that accepts some kind of "Apocrypha" on some level in some way or some things, every single one of them has a DIFFERENT "Apocrypha." You yourself speak of "them" and "these" but never share what "them" are. We often never get past this issue....


Let's say there's a discussion about whether "these" are good colleges. The first mandated thing before we can even begin the discussion is the state EXACTLY which colleges are we discussing: THESE, NOT THESE. If we could have all those who embrace books beyond the 66 tell us EXACTLY WHAT books they ARE and are NOT embracing, then we can discuss them. But Andrew, here's the reality: No two denominations on the planet in nearly 2000 years have the same "these" NEVER has even two denominations on the planet agreed on this.

And then there's issue # 2 in the quote above.... that never gets addressed, either.





One of MANY problems with this, friend, is that books need to be IN before they can be DROPPED. (And, of course, again, you didn't tell us what "these books" are).



Here's what I learned in my class on this:

Prior to the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, there was NEVER ANYTHING whatsoever from anything Jewish or Hebrew about what is and is not Scripture. Indeed, in Jesus' day, by PURE CUSTOM (nothing official, nothing formal, nothing binding) some Jews only accepted the first 5 books of the OT as Scripture. SOME accepted SOME of the prophetic books in our OT , SOME accepted SOME of the wisdom books - but even some of these placed them UNDER the first 5 (as DEUTEROcanonical). Bottom line: There was NO consensus in practice among the Jews and NOTHING WHATSOEVER official or binding or formal, nothing at all. It was all very loose. Now, some Christians (not Jews!!!) will point to the LXX as some kind of official declaration of some unknown Jewish authority AT THAT TIME, but there is zero evidence of that - none. It is likely these were books Jews READ (thus the translation) but NOTHING to indicate they were embraced as the inerrant, inscripturated, words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for doctrine.... SOME unknown corpus of such may simply have been USED by SOME Jews in SOME places - much as some use various hymns on Sunday or various liturgies on a Sunday. To USE or READ something doesn't suggest such is regarded as CANONICAL (the binding norma normans for dogma, the verbally inspired and inerrant written words of God). There is absolutely NOTHING in history, from any Jewish rabbis (then or now) that remotely suggests the LXX was some sort of formal declaration of what IS and IS NOT canonical books of inscripturated words of God.

Better is to see how Jesus and the NT penmen used Scripture. And.... there is ZERO evidence any quoted any book that anyone considers today as "Apocrypha." Yup, you will find lots of websites that TRY to show this is the case with 3 or 4 Apocrypha books (only 3 or 4) BUT if you read those, you'll see NEVER is such quoted - as canonical or otherwise; they simply are saying "this statement seems a lot like that statement in a book some now consider "Apocrypha." But that's irrelevant, just because two sentences are similar doesn't mean anyone is QUOTING something and QUOTING such as canonical. The reality is, Jesus Himself quotes Scripture 50 times - but of the ones we can identify (and that's far from all), none of them are in any Apocrypha book. And of course, if we used this rubric to determine what is and is not OT CANON, we'd reject most of the 39 since most of them are never quoted in the NT (as canon or otherwise).

In any case, there was NOTHING before 90 AD. The ONLY books where we CAN say "The Jews regarded these as canonical" would be the "Books of Moses" (as the Jews called them), the first 5 Books. We CAN say that prior to 90 AD, Jews had a Bible of at least FIVE books - but even that is purely by informal tradition. We CAN say "FIVE books were in." But there's NOTHING to show any others were. LOTS of others (probably many more than are in the LXX) were used by SOME Jews in SOME way but that is irrelevant in whether they were seen by anyone as canonical/scripture.

Jamnia changed all that. By 90AD, the Jews had developed an Authoritative aspect over the religion and (for the first time) COULD declare what is Scripture in a formal, binding, universal way. It was a very controversal issue BECAUSE there was NO consensus at all on what the JEwish Scriptures were (beyond the 5 "Books of Moses"). The whole reason for this Council was BECAUSE there was no agreed upon canon, there wer4e no books "IN" (beyond the Books of Moses) in any formal and universal way. There were Jews who accepted AND rejected MANY Books, agreement only on FIVE.

It is valid to note that CHRISTIANS had no reason to abide by the Council of Jamnia (90 AD) IN FACT, there is ZERO contemporary evidence that CHRISTIANS were even aware of it (the division was begining to solidify by then). I agree.... what the Jews decided in 90 AD is largely irrelevant to us (and so I disagree with Luther on this). BUT it is unavoidable that the Council of Jamnia was huge and important BECAUSE it's the first time in history that there was anything formal concerning what is canonical among the Jews.... there was NO consensus beyond the five Books of Moses before this, SOME Jews accepted SOME books (including some NOT in the LXX) in SOME way before that but that's largely irrelevant to what is and is not canon for the Jews and entirely irrelevant for us.



- Josiah


.

Christians just made them up a decade after Paul's ministry?

What Christians made what up a decade after Paul's ministry?


What are "those" books, "them" books?


Accepted as what?

The greek gentiles had certain books that are now offensive to you Josiah

What Greeks? Which books? Quote me where I stated I am offended by which Greeks who "had" what books?


Where did I state that I am "offended" by anything? Or anyone? Could you quote me?

because they were rejected and not for the reasons you claim

What reasons did I give for anyone rejecting anything as anything?

Luther according to his letters claims that 1rst Maccabees is Holy but 2nd Maccabees is trash, he was cherry picking

He put both in his German translation....


Are you "cherry-picking?" No one can know since you have yet to tell anyone what "them" and "those" books are. Do you accept EVERY book, additions to books, etc. found in the LXX as "Apocrypha?" Do you accept EVERY book that any Jew ever used for something? Do you think Luther's 8 is too few (and thus the RCC's 7 is certiantly too few?). What about the 13 or 15 that some Orthodox regard as Apocrapha? Or the 20 that come regard as Apocrypha? How do we know when you won't list which you accept (and how) and which you don't (and how)? And if YOU are choosing, are you "cherry-picking?"

One of the problems in this discussion is the the Catholic "Apocrypha" is not the same as the (several different) Eastern Orthodox "Apocryphas" which are different again from the Anglican "Apocrypha" which is different again from Luther's "Apocrypha." NONE of the "Apocryphas" are the same. It's difficult to discuss this "set" of books when there is no "set" of books - every single denomination that accepts some kind of "Apocrypha" on some level in some way or some things, every single one of them has a DIFFERENT "Apocrypha." You yourself speak of "them" and "these" but never share what "them" are. We often never get past this issue....


Let's say there's a discussion about whether "these" are good colleges. The first mandated thing before we can even begin the discussion is the state EXACTLY which colleges are we discussing: THESE, NOT THESE. If we could have all those who embrace books beyond the 66 tell us EXACTLY WHAT books they ARE and are NOT embracing, then we can discuss them. But Andrew, here's the reality: No two denominations on the planet in nearly 2000 years have the same "these" NEVER has even two denominations on the planet agreed on this.

And then there's issue # 2 in the quote above.... that never gets addressed, either.



One of MANY problems with this, friend, is that books need to be IN before they can be DROPPED. (And, of course, again, you didn't tell us what "these books" are). You have not shown that this new claim by a tiny few CHRISTIANS is correct: That ALL the books and ONLY the books that were translated into Greek in the LXX were officially declared by some authoritive body of Judaism to be CANONICAL - the verbally inspired, inerrant, inscripturated words of God and thus the norma normans for theology. There is NO evidence at all the Jews EVER even opiniated such a thing.... and NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that any Christian did until very recently. And of course,if that is true, then EVERY denomination's "Apocrypha" is wrong and you are wrong to mention the RCC's 7 (a small percentage of LXX books), the Coptic Orthodox Church's Apocrypha would come closer but still very wrong.

the reasons you use to reject them

What books are "them?"

Quote me in this thread where I state I "reject" anything.





.

 

[atpollard]

Table of contents from the original 1611 King James Bible:

Table of contents from the KJV Thompson Chain-Reference Bible (1988):

Based on a search of Table of Contents, the KJV Bible once contained those extra books, but no longer appears to contain them.

 

[Josiah]

Based on a search of Table of Contents, the KJV Bible once contained those extra books, but no longer appears to contain them.

The AV includes 80 books (a unique number). However, it is not copywritten and all the many publishers are free to add or subtract whatever they want in response to customer's desires. In the USA, most KJV Bibles are not sold to Anglicans and those customers have no desire to pay for books they don't want. You can even by an AV tome with just the NT in it since that's what some customers desire.





.

 

[Albion]

Table of contents from the original 1611 King James Bible:

Table of contents from the KJV Thompson Chain-Reference Bible (1988):

Based on a search of Table of Contents, the KJV Bible once contained those extra books, but no longer appears to contain them.

Well, that's wrong. The bound volume did for some years include the Apocrypha along with the Old Testament and the New Testament, not unlike edition you can buy today that include maps of the Holy Land or introductions or the frontpiece or a Table of Contents. None of those pages is actually part of the Bible.

These all were simply lined up in chronological order in the KJV that is pictured--the books of Scripture and the uninspired Apocryphal books, all put in chronological order but clearly labeled as such. The church had previously explained to everyone in the land that the Apocrypha was not to be considered Scripture, although it was included in the print edition which is shown.

And for what it's worth, this is not my 'seat of the pants' explanation. It is well known to rank and file Anglicans who have an interest in church history.

 

[Andrew]

What Christians made what up a decade after Paul's ministry?


What are "those" books, "them" books?


Accepted as what?







What Greeks? Which books? Quote me where I stated I am offended by which Greeks who "had" what books?


Where did I state that I am "offended" by anything? Or anyone? Could you quote me?







What reasons did I give for anyone rejecting anything as anything?






He put both in his German translation....


Are you "cherry-picking?" No one can know since you have yet to tell anyone what "them" and "those" books are. Do you accept EVERY book, additions to books, etc. found in the LXX as "Apocrypha?" Do you accept EVERY book that any Jew ever used for something? Do you think Luther's 8 is too few (and thus the RCC's 7 is certiantly too few?). What about the 13 or 15 that some Orthodox regard as Apocrapha? Or the 20 that come regard as Apocrypha? How do we know when you won't list which you accept (and how) and which you don't (and how)? And if YOU are choosing, are you "cherry-picking?"

One of the problems in this discussion is the the Catholic "Apocrypha" is not the same as the (several different) Eastern Orthodox "Apocryphas" which are different again from the Anglican "Apocrypha" which is different again from Luther's "Apocrypha." NONE of the "Apocryphas" are the same. It's difficult to discuss this "set" of books when there is no "set" of books - every single denomination that accepts some kind of "Apocrypha" on some level in some way or some things, every single one of them has a DIFFERENT "Apocrypha." You yourself speak of "them" and "these" but never share what "them" are. We often never get past this issue....


Let's say there's a discussion about whether "these" are good colleges. The first mandated thing before we can even begin the discussion is the state EXACTLY which colleges are we discussing: THESE, NOT THESE. If we could have all those who embrace books beyond the 66 tell us EXACTLY WHAT books they ARE and are NOT embracing, then we can discuss them. But Andrew, here's the reality: No two denominations on the planet in nearly 2000 years have the same "these" NEVER has even two denominations on the planet agreed on this.

And then there's issue # 2 in the quote above.... that never gets addressed, either.



One of MANY problems with this, friend, is that books need to be IN before they can be DROPPED. (And, of course, again, you didn't tell us what "these books" are). You have not shown that this new claim by a tiny few CHRISTIANS is correct: That ALL the books and ONLY the books that were translated into Greek in the LXX were officially declared by some authoritive body of Judaism to be CANONICAL - the verbally inspired, inerrant, inscripturated words of God and thus the norma normans for theology. There is NO evidence at all the Jews EVER even opiniated such a thing.... and NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that any Christian did until very recently. And of course,if that is true, then EVERY denomination's "Apocrypha" is wrong and you are wrong to mention the RCC's 7 (a small percentage of LXX books), the Coptic Orthodox Church's Apocrypha would come closer but still very wrong.








Quote me where I gave any reasons?


What books are "them?"




.

They are the books Luther rejected as canon, you can probably figure out which books they were.. Many are additions to other books, letters, wisdom books, historical books, poetry, prophetic etc.. No more or less inspired than the "other writings" apart from the Torah.. I've listed them before but I'm not in the mood for listing and spell checking them all right now lol.. but like I said, whatever Luther threw out are "them"... had he thrown out "Mary had a little lamb" I would wonder why it was ever included in the first place!
Notice that what he rejected were first accepted, the RCC didn't put them there, so he could have only rejected something that had already stuck from the get-go.. Yes the schism created a division between East and West, one spake Greek, the other Latin, one set no canon nor added or deleted from the greek OT (wise! No need to canonize pre Christian Holy books), the other divided them into canon, 2nd canon etc and through faulty Latin translations of the greek intermingled with the Hebrew Masoretic, much confusion was done, but who would know until much later when only the Latin church was allowed to have the bible in the west? Common folk were not even allowed to possess the bible for themselves, long story short Wycliffe translated it for common men, Luther confronted the false dogmas of the RCC, set the Protestant canon of the OT, and certain books just kind of poof disappeared into thin air as non inspired thus naturally discouraged and devalued.
So to compare western OT canon to the eastern orthodox non canon OT we find a cluster of divisions concerning OT "rule" of what and what not to include in the Old Testament.. What good does it do to "canon" any Jewish Holy text AFTER Christ's ministry???
Why would a Jewish canon in Jamnia in 90 AD make any difference to what Christ had finally established? It makes no difference what the unbelievers decided on after Christ came and went, the Greeks were handed the Old Testament Word of God just in the knick of time of Christianity after thousands of years of Hebrew language only scrolls! What a coincidence!
God prepared the gentile world as well as the greek speaking hebrew world for the fulfillment of prophesy and He did not fail..
Gentile Christians now had a hard copy of Gods word in their language, they were well equiped with ancient prophetic literature to use and study as they witnessed to the unbelieving Jews and the unbelievers had the impossible task of refuting them.. so no surprise that a conspiracy to pervert the greek translations through "canon" would take place swiftly..
After the destruction of the Temple the Pharisees became the main priestly sect of Judaism and influenced the synagogues by replacing their scrolls with a new greek translation roughly by the year 150 AD.
Paul certainly gave us a heads up that they were already testing Christians through fables and genealogies.. but you accept a Jewish canon created after Christ's ascension?
When I said it offends you Josiah, I meant that it troubles you how early Christians are well documented in favoring and accepting many so called "Apocrypha" books without prejudice or bias, but because Luther rejected them and you are a Lutheran, you find it a bit obnoxious how anyone could have ever valued these books to be as equal as the rest of the books in the protestant OT canon, if you didn't find it bothersome you would not be in this conversation.

 

[Andrew]

Table of contents from the original 1611 King James Bible:

Table of contents from the KJV Thompson Chain-Reference Bible (1988):

Based on a search of Table of Contents, the KJV Bible once contained those extra books, but no longer appears to contain them.

This book is the Holy Bible correct? I wonder if ALL of it's contents are Holy

 

[Andrew]

Well, that's wrong. The bound volume did for some years include the Apocrypha along with the Old Testament and the New Testament, not unlike edition you can buy today that include maps of the Holy Land or introductions or the frontpiece or a Table of Contents. None of those pages is actually part of the Bible.

These all were simply lined up in chronological order in the KJV that is pictured--the books of Scripture and the uninspired Apocryphal books, all put in chronological order but clearly labeled as such. The church had previously explained to everyone in the land that the Apocrypha was not to be considered Scripture, although it was included in the print edition which is shown.

And for what it's worth, this is not my 'seat of the pants' explanation. It is well known to rank and file Anglicans who have an interest in church history.

Sooo.. Since Jerome went to Jerusalem for Jewish commentary on scripture during his Latin translation and didn't find these books included in their Tanakh... and out of "respect" to the Church he labeled them "Apocrypha"...and the church embraced the word even though they hated the idea.. and thus included the name "Apocrypha".. it means that the early Christian fathers -who clearly did not reject these books as uninspired- were always wrong because unbelieving Jewish Rabbis are always right?
One or the other is wrong, either Jesus and the Apostles were terrible at quoting the OT and the NT writers had problems with numbers and genealogies OR the unbelieving Jews gave us a different OT (Masoretic) with less profound prophesies that allow room for debate over the Messiah and a genealogy that allows room for Shem to be Melchezidic that hands the role of High Priesthood to Abraham and to the tribe of Levi (Jesus is from the tribe of Judah).. also all those pesky "extra books" that are linked to the original Septuagint translation (Jews annually mourn this translation) which got them in trouble in the first place are removed, meaning that early 1rst Century Christians must have added these books for no reason at all off the top of their heads and were martyred over what they held true... I mean seriously where did they ("Apocrypha" books) come from then?? Certainly not an invention of 3rd century Rome if it's mentioned by Clement of Rome just a decade after Paul wrote to the same church (the biggest and most well organized church at the time).. the church MUST have been familiar with Judith to know what Clement was talking about when he mentioned her.

 

[Lamb]

The AV includes 80 books (a unique number). However, it is not copywritten and all the many publishers are free to add or subtract whatever they want in response to customer's desires. In the USA, most KJV Bibles are not sold to Anglicans and those customers have no desire to pay for books they don't want. You can even by an AV tome with just the NT in it since that's what some customers desire.





.

So what you are saying is that most Anglican bibles do NOT contain the Apocrypha when it comes down to what today's Anglicans purchase.

 

[Josiah]

So what you are saying is that most Anglican bibles do NOT contain the Apocrypha when it comes down to what today's Anglicans purchase.

No.


The AV contains (a unique) 80 books. 14 of which are DEUTEROcanonical.

However, the Bible has never been copywriten, and in 1611 when the Anglican Church authorized the Authorized Version (aka King James Version), nothing was copywriten. ANY publishing house or company or church or individual can use and publish the AV in any way they want - including eliminating some of the 80 books. You can sell tomes with just 66 books in it. Or just 27 NT books. Or just the 14 DEUTEROcanonical books (all easily available). You can even just print one verse from it (say John 3:16) or just a few (as in Psalm 23 or Luke 2:1-20) - it's legal (nothing copywritten here) and OFTEN done.

BUT none of that changes the reality, the fact, that the Anglican Church - officially, formally - adopted 80 books (66 as canonical, exactly 14 as deuterocanonical) AND that the AV originally (and still most often in the UK) included all these 80 books: 39 in the OT section (all canonical), exactly and uniquely 14 in the section the Anglican Church called "Apocrypha" which are regarded as deuterocanonical, and 27 in the NT section (regarded as canonical) which of course totals exactly 80 (a number unique to the Anglican Church). Why? Because The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church prescribe exactly 80. This fact does NOT mandate that every TOME include all 80 - it's okay to publish and own just the NT for example, legal to just put Luke 2 on the big screen in front of the church. I've been to an Episcopal church.... and the Bibles in the pews had 80 books in them.


BTW, Lamm, as I understand it, Luther's German Translation had 74 Books in it. One MORE than the post-Trent Catholic tome. In Europe, Bibles in Lutheran churches STILL have 74 Books in them. In the USA, the Bibles in Lutheran churches had 74 books in them - even if Luther's translation into German was then translated into English. It was after World War I that US Lutherans moved away from Luther's translation. By the 1930's and 1940's, the KJV became typically used in Lutheran churches in the USA, and by then, KJV Bibles published and sold here in the USA typically contained only the 66 canonical books with the 14 others dropped. Today, Concordia Publishing House publishes the Concordia Study Bible in TWO volumns - one containing the 66 and the second containing the 8 others. So even in 2019, LUTHERANS are including 74 books - albeit published in two volumns. When I got my Concordia Study Bible, I bought both as a set. This is our own CPH, the official publishing house of the LCMS. CHP also publishes excellent Bible Studies of these 8 books.

Luther included 74 for one simple reason: This was the fairly universal pattern in Germany (well.... actually..... German Bibles in his day had 75 books; Luther dropped The Epistle to the Laodiceans from the NT - a point Catholics still complain about to this day, in spite of the reality that Trent did not include it, either). With that one exception, his translation into German was of the typical German Bibles of the 16th Century. Simple as that. It included 74 books - one MORE than modern Catholics ones, 6 less than the Anglican Authorized Version. HOWEVER, Lamm, as I noted several times in this thread, there was a very common - nearly universal - view at the time that not all books found in some tome or in some lectionary are EQUAL in authority or canonicity.... among the 66, there are those "Spoken in favor" and those "spoken against" (a distinction largely forgotten in the past 400 years or so) and then there were those not canonical at all, but under that or secondary to that (the meaning of the word "DEUTEROcanonical" - the "PC" and theological term for what Anglicans and in English we call "apocrypha"). Luther simply passes on that PERSONAL OPINION in his introduction to each of the 74 books. Luther was also the first to re-group things (the ORDER of the books in the Bible was NOT at all, not in the least formalized at the time - every tome had it's own order) - Luther groups together the 8 DEUTERO books that IN HIS PERSONAL OPINION were DEUTERO and not canonical (whether spoken in favor or against). Anglicans followed this practice. But it's okay to print out just PART of Luther's version (never copywriten) just as it is the AV or the RSV or the ESV or the NIV, but Luther's translation indeed had 74 books in it.



This DOES relate to the issue before us. Note the following that I posted to the opening poster in post 23....

Here's the problem with your question and the thread..... With all DUE RESPECT to what I'm SURE you meant as a valid, direct question....


1. You use a term "Apocrypha" as if there is some universal understanding of what you are talking about. THERE IS NOT. Of the claimed 10,000 denominations on the planet right now, there are not even TWO that understand that term the same way, as referring to the SAME block of material. Of those who in some sense accept some books that Calvin did not accept in the 16th Century, NO TWO agree on WHICH books that includes. Before we can even begin to discuss "the Apocrypha", you'd need to define WHAT books you are nd are not talking about.


2. You left open HOW they might "belong." As historical? As worthy to be read? As qualifying to be in the Lectionary and as sermon texts? To be used as SUPPORTIVE but not normative? To be used as the rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice? Belong... HOW? In what capacity?


.

A blessed Advent and Christmas to you and yours....







.

 

[Lamb]

No.


The AV contains (a unique) 80 books. 14 of which are DEUTEROcanonical.

.

You really didn't answer what I responded to...and that's concerning how many Anglican bibles purchased today by its members don't include the Apocrypha.

 

[Josiah]

You really didn't answer what I responded to...and that's concerning how many Anglican bibles purchased today by its members don't include the Apocrypha.

Lamm, I don't suspect there is any way to know. There are tens of thousands of publishing houses..... some 70 million Anglicans.... and there is no record of what people are buying what. It might be possible to go to any single publishing house and find out their best selling products, but we'd have no way to know the denominational affiliation of those customers. Sorry, I think you are asking a question that cannot be answered.

In any case, just because someone may only buy a tome with 66 books in it does not change the reality that the AV has 80....or that the Thirty-Nine Articles includes 80. Anymore than if a Lutheran buys an ESV with 66 books in it changes the reality that Luther's translation had 74 books in it or the reality that the Lutheran Confessions say nothing to this issue. What customers buy really doesn't change denominational positions or historic realities, IMO.


I hope that helps.


- Josiah