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

[Andrew]

.

 

[NathanH83]

.

Good point. Really spot on.

 

[Andrew]

Luther mentions Manasseh during his commentary works on Genesis regarding Cain who trembled in fear of his punishment and pleaded for Gods mercy, he notes that some rabbis argue that Cain saw the punishment as unfair and that God ought to forgive him his sin, Luther then expresses that all men tremble in fear in the face of God's wrath, he cites Manasseh who said "all men tremble in your presence" he also quotes James "even the devils tremble in the presence of God"
...
I'd like to note that he intended his writings for a Christian audience so he uses James (a book Luther doubted was authored by the apostle) but also he uses an OT prayer, something the Jews would have been familiar with and Christians alike.. the prayer of Manasseh was even part of his personal prayer book. So even if authorship is unknown or obscure or lost in time, it is still written works of inspiration either secular inspiration or God inspired.
The prayer itself according to 2nd Chronicles 33 gives a citation of where Manasseh's prayer can be found (in the Book of Kings) however first and 2nd Kings does not provide us the prayer but that the prayer was written down, the Septuagint however says in 2 Chronicles that it's written in the book of his prayer, the Septuagint includes that book..

A quote from The prayer of Manasseh is found in the Apostolic Constitutions 4th century AD and the given date of the publishing of this book was in 2nd century BC during the greek translations of Hebrew holy text.
To say that it wasn't part of the original Septuagint is in my opinion, highly doubtful.

Lutheran theology and the Prayer of Manasseh kind of go hand to hand, seeing how Manasseh confesses to God that he is a chief of sinners and his works alone are terrible without God's grace and how through Faith he repented and God regenerated him unto good works..
Maybe that's why Luther valued Manasseh's prayer

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/luther-citing-prayer-of-manassas-james.html?m=1

 

[Josiah]

Is there something doctrinally wrong with the prayer of Manasseh?

Not that I recall. But then there's probably nothing doctrinally wrong with most of the world's trillions of books. That's probably true for all of the hundreds of books I own and have in my library.

 

[Josiah]

Luther mentions Manasseh during his commentary works on Genesis regarding Cain who trembled in fear of his punishment and pleaded for Gods mercy, he notes that some rabbis argue that Cain saw the punishment as unfair and that God ought to forgive him his sin, Luther then expresses that all men tremble in fear in the face of God's wrath, he cites Manasseh who said "all men tremble in your presence" he also quotes James "even the devils tremble in the presence of God"
...
I'd like to note that he intended his writings for a Christian audience so he uses James (a book Luther doubted was authored by the apostle) but also he uses an OT prayer, something the Jews would have been familiar with and Christians alike.. the prayer of Manasseh was even part of his personal prayer book. So even if authorship is unknown or obscure or lost in time, it is still written works of inspiration either secular inspiration or God inspired.
The prayer itself according to 2nd Chronicles 33 gives a citation of where Manasseh's prayer can be found (in the Book of Kings) however first and 2nd Kings does not provide us the prayer but that the prayer was written down, the Septuagint however says in 2 Chronicles that it's written in the book of his prayer, the Septuagint includes that book..

A quote from The prayer of Manasseh is found in the Apostolic Constitutions 4th century AD and the given date of the publishing of this book was in 2nd century BC during the greek translations of Hebrew holy text.
To say that it wasn't part of the original Septuagint is in my opinion, highly doubtful.

Lutheran theology and the Prayer of Manasseh kind of go hand to hand, seeing how Manasseh confesses to God that he is a chief of sinners and his works alone are terrible without God's grace and how through Faith he repented and God regenerated him unto good works..
Maybe that's why Luther valued Manasseh's prayer

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/luther-citing-prayer-of-manassas-james.html?m=1

1. Quoting something is not the same as declaring the book wherein that is written to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice. You quoted a blog... you cited it... does that mean you thus regard it to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice?


2. See post # 131. There was in essence a "three-tired" sense of writings - "spoken in favor" canonical, "spoken against" canonical and then DEUTEROcanonical. All 3 were included in Lectionaries.... all 3 were cited and quoted and used as texts for sermons. And then there were COUNTLESS other writings also cited and quoted and used but were not in lectionaries or biblical tomes (it was not unusual to quote and cite Early Church Fathers MORE than anything in anyone's Bible. You're assumption that if something is quoted or cited, ERGO it is considered to be the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice equally to say the Book of Romans is simply incorrect. Today, you might hear "Evangelical" preachers cite all kinds of books, movies, TV shows, celebrities and contemporary music.... it does NOT mean that ERGO every one of the thousands of denominations and millions of churches and billions of Christians ERGO consider all that to be the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice equal to anything else. It's just not true.


3. Luther included this prayer as DEUTEROcanonical because it appeared in the biblical tomes of his day in Germany. He translated the Bible AS GERMANS KNEW AND USED IT, for Germans in German. See post 131. Did he at times cite or quote it? Absolutely! He also cited and quoted St. Augustine MANY, MANY times. But he gave his own personal opinion about these "beyond 66" books... it was the common opinion of his time (dogmatized by the Anglican Church)... it flatly, boldly, verbatim says that in his view, these are NOT canonical but are DEUTEROcanonical, NOT to be used as a rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice. Can they be cited and quoted and used? YES! So can St. Ignatius and St. Augustine. Or by any number of popular books and preachers that "Evangelicals" constantly quote. Doesn't make them the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice as declared by all 2 billion Christians for 2000 years. Nope.





.

 

[atpollard]

The book you mentioned was published in 2000 and it expands on a passage of an OT book, the book of 1rst Chronicles.. the "Prayer of Manasseh" is also in the same sense but was written well over 2000 years ago during the "400 years of silence" when it was authored.. The prayer however is mentioned in 2nd Chronicles 33, and in that chapter you will find that Manasseh's prayer was written down by the seers and kept.. The Septuagint boldly says that his prayer is written in the account of his Prayer.. that is the book of the "Prayer of Mannasseh"
Manasseh's prayer for God's mercy was heard and answered and God freed him and blessed him and restored Manasseh to his throne because he repented in his prayer..
This was written in Greek in the 2nd century BC during the composition of the Greek Septuagint, so it was originally catalogued by the Jews and translated into Greek..

I wonder if you can even see how problematic what you wrote is. Let’s just take everything you said about Manasseh, the writing of the Prayer of Manasseh and the translation and compilation of the Septuagint as fact (to avoid scholarly debate). You have just refuted the historicity of scripture. The Bible we have cannot be trusted to be the words written by the eyewitnesses that it claims to be. You have reduced the Old Testament to unreliable mythology passed down orally and written or invented by people that were never there.

Manasseh reigned from 697 to 643 BC.
The “400 years of silence” does not begin for another 200 years.

The Prayer of Manasseh mentioned in the Septuagint would be like reading a speech by George Washington written sometime after 1976 in Spanish and believing that it was Washington’s inspired words.

This is what makes viewing such books as “scripture” so dangerous. Whatever the Prayer of Manasseh says, the facts surrounding it taint the authority of all Scripture.

 

[Andrew]

I wonder if you can even see how problematic what you wrote is. Let’s just take everything you said about Manasseh, the writing of the Prayer of Manasseh and the translation and compilation of the Septuagint as fact (to avoid scholarly debate). You have just refuted the historicity of scripture. The Bible we have cannot be trusted to be the words written by the eyewitnesses that it claims to be. You have reduced the Old Testament to unreliable mythology passed down orally and written or invented by people that were never there.

Manasseh reigned from 697 to 643 BC.
The “400 years of silence” does not begin for another 200 years.

The Prayer of Manasseh mentioned in the Septuagint would be like reading a speech by George Washington written sometime after 1976 in Spanish and believing that it was Washington’s inspired words.

This is what makes viewing such books as “scripture” so dangerous. Whatever the Prayer of Manasseh says, the facts surrounding it taint the authority of all Scripture.

The publish date 2nd century AD is around the time of the greek translation, the original hebrew sources that the Septuagint was copied from no longer exist, that's why they dated it 2nd cenrury

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]
So because the only known copy of the Prayer of Manasseh dates back to the 2nd Century BC this must mean that it wasn't originally written in Hebrew and thus the reason we find it in the Greek Septuagint is because some pagan greeks wrote it in the 2nd century BC? Why would they do that?

Again the reason it dates back to 2nd century BC is because it's referring to the Greek, Jews in the first century AD despised Christians and especially the Septuagint! They saw the translation of the TORAH alone into greek as a tragedy in of itself and Jews today STILL FAST ON THE TENTH OF TEVET TO MOURN THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT.

Yes such a tragedy that God handed the greek speaking world the OT centuries before Christ, so that Christians would have it available to them without the help of non believing Jews

So no I did not disprove myself and no the Apocrypha books do not "damage" the bible just as it did not "damage" Christianity in the first 3 centuries.

Manasseh and other Apocrypha books are all dated during the 400 years because we don't have the original Hebrew sources that the Septuagint used.
Thanks to the Greek Septuagint we KNOW that a VIRGIN will conceive and not just any maiden, which is an every day occurrence and thus nothing miraculous or noteworthy that a child would be born of a women.. My friends we should be grateful for the Septuagint, the Hebrew text tells us that the birth of Jesus was no miracle.

Tenth of Tevet according to the Jews

"The Talmud (Megillah*9b) tells how King Ptolemy (died 246 BCE) placed 72 Jewish scholars in different rooms and told them to translate the Torah. In an act of Divine Providence the 72 translations all matched each other.

The translation became known as the Septuagint, which means “the 70” in Greek – in reference to the general amount of scholars who translated it. This is the basic translation of the Bible that much of the non-Jewish world has today.

Despite advantages to teaching the non-Jewish world the Written Torah, the Torah Sages did not welcome the opportunity. “The day when the Torah was written in Greek was as unfortunate for Israel as the day of the Golden Calf” (Soferim*1:7). They even decreed that the day the Septuagint was completed, the eighth day of the month of*Teves*(in the winter), was to be marked on the Jewish calendar as “a day of darkness” (Megillas Taanis).

It was combined with two other tragedies around that date – the death of Ezra and the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem – and decreed a public fast day (Asara B’Teves, “the Tenth of*Teves”). Perhaps the reason was because they saw that the translation would open the door for usurpers and new religions claiming to supplant or succeed the Torah"

https://www.jewishhistory.org/the-10th-of-tevet/

 

[Josiah]

Is there something doctrinally wrong with the prayer of Manasseh?

Not that I recall. But then there's probably nothing doctrinally wrong with most of the world's trillions of books. That's probably true for all of the hundreds of books I own and have in my library.


.

beggarsallreformation.blogspo...james.html?m=1

1. Quoting something is not the same as declaring the book wherein that is written to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice. You quoted a blog... you cited it... does that mean you thus regard it to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice?


2. See post # 131. There was in essence a "three-tired" sense of writings - "spoken in favor" canonical, "spoken against" canonical and then DEUTEROcanonical. All 3 were included in Lectionaries.... all 3 were cited and quoted and used as texts for sermons. And then there were COUNTLESS other writings also cited and quoted and used but were not in lectionaries or biblical tomes (it was not unusual to quote and cite Early Church Fathers MORE than anything in anyone's Bible. You're assumption that if something is quoted or cited, ERGO it is considered to be the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice equally to say the Book of Romans is simply incorrect. Today, you might hear "Evangelical" preachers cite all kinds of books, movies, TV shows, celebrities and contemporary music.... it does NOT mean that ERGO every one of the thousands of denominations and millions of churches and billions of Christians ERGO consider all that to be the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice equal to anything else. It's just not true.


3. Luther included this prayer as DEUTEROcanonical because it appeared in the biblical tomes of his day in Germany. He translated the Bible AS GERMANS KNEW AND USED IT, for Germans in German. See post 131. Did he at times cite or quote it? Absolutely! He also cited and quoted St. Augustine MANY, MANY times. But he gave his own personal opinion about these "beyond 66" books... it was the common opinion of his time (dogmatized by the Anglican Church)... it flatly, boldly, verbatim says that in his view, these are NOT canonical but are DEUTEROcanonical, NOT to be used as a rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice. Can they be cited and quoted and used? YES! So can St. Ignatius and St. Augustine. Or by any number of popular books and preachers that "Evangelicals" constantly quote. Doesn't make them the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice as declared by all 2 billion Christians for 2000 years. Nope.


.

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

So because the only known copy of the Prayer of Manasseh dates back to the 2nd Century BC this must mean that it wasn't originally written in Hebrew and thus the reason we find it in the Greek Septuagint is because some pagan greeks wrote it in the 2nd century BC? Why would they do that?

I don't recall saying any such thing.

Read the above from me. Read post 131.

Manasseh and other Apocrypha books

1. WHICH books? The RCC doesn't include the Prayer of Manasseh.... the Anglican Church does;.... the Lutheran Church takes not stand on it... 7 books? 8 books? 12 books? 13 books? 14 books? 15 Books, 21 books? WHICH?

2. APOCRYPHA.... since you call them apocrypha, they ergo are not canonical, they are AT BEST DEUTEROcanonical. And it seems you agree with Luther and the Anglican Church on the status just not on what books that applies to, WHICH books are good to read but are not to be used a canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice.

Thanks to the Greek Septuagint we KNOW that a VIRGIN will conceive and not just any maiden

1. We know Mary was a virgin because the NT tells us that.

2. The Hebrew can mean virgin. I agree it can mean simply a young unmarried girl (the two concepts were the same then) but we know Mary was a virgin not because of a Hebrew word that CAN mean that but because the NT specifically STATES that, in various ways.

3. Whether the Prayer of Manasseh is canonical or deuterocanonical has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Mary was a virgin. NO book that ANYONE considers "APOCRYPHA" even mentions the mother of the messiah. At all.




.

 

[Andrew]

I don't recall saying any such thing.

Read the above from me. Read post 131.

Again the reason it dates back to 2nd century BC is because it's referring to the Greek, Jews in the first century AD despised Christians and especially the Septuagint! They saw the translation of the TORAH alone into greek as a tragedy in of itself and Jews today STILL FAST ON THE TENTH OF TEVET TO MOURN THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT.

Yes such a tragedy that God handed the greek speaking world the OT centuries before Christ, so that Christians would have it available to them without the help of non believing Jews

So no I did not disprove myself and no the Apocrypha books do not "damage" the bible just as it did not "damage" Christianity in the first 3 centuries.

Manasseh and other Apocrypha books are all dated during the 400 years because we don't have the original Hebrew sources that the Septuagint used.
Thanks to the Greek Septuagint we KNOW that a VIRGIN will conceive and not just any maiden, which is an every day occurrence and thus nothing miraculous or noteworthy that a child would be born of a women.. My friends we should be grateful for the Septuagint, the Hebrew text tells us that the birth of Jesus was no miracle.

Tenth of Tevet according to the Jews

"The Talmud (Megillah*9b) tells how King Ptolemy (died 246 BCE) placed 72 Jewish scholars in different rooms and told them to translate the Torah. In an act of Divine Providence the 72 translations all matched each other.

The translation became known as the Septuagint, which means “the 70” in Greek – in reference to the general amount of scholars who translated it. This is the basic translation of the Bible that much of the non-Jewish world has today.

Despite advantages to teaching the non-Jewish world the Written Torah, the Torah Sages did not welcome the opportunity. “The day when the Torah was written in Greek was as unfortunate for Israel as the day of the Golden Calf” (Soferim*1:7). They even decreed that the day the Septuagint was completed, the eighth day of the month of*Teves*(in the winter), was to be marked on the Jewish calendar as “a day of darkness” (Megillas Taanis).

It was combined with two other tragedies around that date – the death of Ezra and the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem – and decreed a public fast day (Asara B’Teves, “the Tenth of*Teves”). Perhaps the reason was because they saw that the translation would open the door for usurpers and new religions claiming to supplant or succeed the Torah"

https://www.jewishhistory.org/the-10th-of-tevet/

[/QUOTE]You didn't say it was damaging, atpollard did, I just mentioned you because you also have doubt that ante nicene Christian writers were quoting from books that they held to be inspired side by side with our familiar masoretic OT.
I just don't accept that 'doubtful books' labeled "apocrypha" would be included in Holy Bibles if they weren't truly Holy, was it or was it not including in the Christian Holy Bible, the word of God?
The so called "Apocrypha" was slowly dropped over time when the early Christians clearly wrote of them in their sermons/epistles

 

[Josiah]

you also have doubt that ante nicene Christian writers were quoting from books that they held to be inspired side by side with our familiar OT.

1. IF you quoted one doing that (and you have not) that AT MOST would show that one dude quoted from some book and also from Scripture. Happens a LOT. Read any modern Christian book? There are millions of them. They OFTEN quote from Scripture and quote from other writings..... I disagree that ERGO that's proof that all 2 billion Christians, all 10 million congregations and all 10 thousand denominations authoritatively declare all those books quoted in all the millions of Christian tomes are ergo the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice. IF you did this, it would show some person quoted from the Bible and from something else.


2. To make your point, what we'd need is MANY voices..... consistently..... by name quoting from some extra book as in "It is written in the book The Prayer of Manasseh"..... and "thus says the Lord" . And even then, we could not say this was ecumenical or authoritative - just frequent... Often, people will quote a sentence from some ECF..... then a sentence from some non-66 book..... shout "these are similiar!!!!" and then make the absolutely absurd remark "Thus it's a QUOTE and thus this Book is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans!" It's laughably absurd.

I just don't accept that 'doubtful books' labeled "apocrypha" would be included in Holy Bibles if they weren't truly Holy, was it or was it not including in the Christian Holy Bible, the word of God?

Then you'd have to accept MANY books - including the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle to the Leodicans, First and Second Clement..... if I can find my textbook from my class, I can list maybe a dozen books that ONCE were in NT tomes among Christians that no longer are; by your assumption, if some book ever was in the table of content, it MUST be Scripture. Friend - you'd have to accept at least a dozen Gnostic heretical books and maybe a dozen Christian books (many perfectly okay in terms of doctrine) that are no longer accepted and used or read. AND just because a book was included in the table of contents does NOT mean it was seen as equally authoritative OR was authoritatively accepted. Remember: not until the late 16th Century were tomes "authorize" and "approved."


See post 131.




.

 

[atpollard]

Just setting the record straight. Andrew stated:

The book you mentioned was published in 2000 and it expands on a passage of an OT book, the book of 1rst Chronicles.. the "Prayer of Manasseh" is also in the same sense but was written well over 2000 years ago during the "400 years of silence" when it was authored.. The prayer however is mentioned in 2nd Chronicles 33, and in that chapter you will find that Manasseh's prayer was written down by the seers and kept.. The Septuagint boldly says that his prayer is written in the account of his Prayer.. that is the book of the "Prayer of Mannasseh"

YOU provided the dates, not me.

Arthur even clarified:

Let’s just take everything you said about Manasseh, the writing of the Prayer of Manasseh and the translation and compilation of the Septuagint as fact (to avoid scholarly debate).

... Yet here we are in the very scholarly debate that I wanted no part of:

The publish date 2nd century AD is around the time of the greek translation, the original hebrew sources that the Septuagint was copied from no longer exist, that's why they dated it 2nd century

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]
So because the only known copy of the Prayer of Manasseh dates back to the 2nd Century BC this must mean that it wasn't originally written in Hebrew and thus the reason we find it in the Greek Septuagint is because some pagan greeks wrote it in the 2nd century BC? Why would they do that?

Again the reason it dates back to 2nd century BC is because it's referring to the Greek, Jews in the first century AD despised Christians and especially the Septuagint! They saw the translation of the TORAH alone into greek as a tragedy in of itself and Jews today STILL FAST ON THE TENTH OF TEVET TO MOURN THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT.

Since you insist ... why are there NO Hebrew fragments from the Prayer of Manasseh among the THOUSANDS of scroll fragments discovered hidden around Judea? Why are there no Hebrew quotes from the Prayer of Manasseh among the THOUSANDS of scroll fragments of commentaries

Why are there NO Hebrew fragments from the Prayer of Manasseh among the THOUSANDS of scroll fragments discovered hidden around Judea?
Why are there NO Hebrew quotes from the Prayer of Manasseh among the THOUSANDS of scroll fragments of commentaries discovered hidden around Judea?
Why are there NO Hebrew copies of the Prayer of Manasseh among the HUNDREDS of later scroll copies passed down by Jews?
Why are there NO Aramaic copies of the Prayer of Manasseh among the DOZENS of later scroll copies passed down by Jews?
Why are there NO Hebrew quotes from the Prayer of Manasseh among the Jewish commentaries passed down by Jews?

You are arguing that a single copy in Hebrew was preserved and passed down to Alexandria without being copied, translated, or quoted by any other group of Jews (including those in Jerusalem) and only survives in a Greek translation by a group that had no problem rewriting the earlier Hebrew scripture delivered by the prophets to add embellishments that they felt belonged. Our modern Old Testament is not based on the Jewish Mesoretic text. At the time of the KJV the OT was based on the Septuagint as the most complete manuscripts available in the Middle Ages. Since then, the Dead Sea scrolls and many other scroll fragments offer strong evidence that the Mesoretic text is closer to the earlier (pre-Septuagent) Hebrew texts. Modern translations are based on the OLDEST AVAILABLE manuscripts and "textural criticism" of the copies that identifies additions and copyist errors (often by comparing multiple manuscripts to how a text was translated into an obscure language at an early date).

I avoided a direct analysis of the Prayer on Manasseh because I have not done the scholarly research to offer an opinion. You stated when it was written and I took your statement as fact.
(I am not avoiding a theological discussion on the actual content of the prayer, I just have not had time to get there yet. I will probably respond to that in a new topic because it has nothing to do with Apocrypha vs Scripture, but simply what does the prayer actually say.)

 

[Andrew]

1. IF you quoted one doing that (and you have not) that AT MOST would show that one dude quoted from some book and also from Scripture. Happens a LOT. Read any modern Christian book? There are millions of them. They OFTEN quote from Scripture and quote from other writings..... I disagree that ERGO that's proof that all 2 billion Christians, all 10 million congregations and all 10 thousand denominations authoritatively declare all those books quoted in all the millions of Christian tomes are ergo the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice. IF you did this, it would show some person quoted from the Bible and from something else.


2. To make your point, what we'd need is MANY voices..... consistently..... by name quoting from some extra book as in "It is written in the book The Prayer of Manasseh"..... and "thus says the Lord" . And even then, we could not say this was ecumenical or authoritative - just frequent... Often, people will quote a sentence from some ECF..... then a sentence from some non-66 book..... shout "these are similiar!!!!" and then make the absolutely absurd remark "Thus it's a QUOTE and thus this Book is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans!" It's laughably absurd.






Then you'd have to accept MANY books - including the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle to the Leodicans, First and Second Clement..... if I can find my textbook from my class, I can list maybe a dozen books that ONCE were in NT tomes among Christians that no longer are; by your assumption, if some book ever was in the table of content, it MUST be Scripture. Friend - you'd have to accept at least a dozen Gnostic heretical books and maybe a dozen Christian books (many perfectly okay in terms of doctrine) that are no longer accepted and used or read. AND just because a book was included in the table of contents does NOT mean it was seen as equally authoritative OR was authoritatively accepted. Remember: not until the late 16th Century were tomes "authorize" and "approved."


See post 131.




.

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians:

“Ye understand, beloved, ye understand well the Sacred Scriptures, and ye have looked very earnestly into the oracles of God. Call then these things to your remembrance. When Moses went up into the mount Sinai....
..Many women also, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. Esther also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger, in order to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction. For with fasting and humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who seeth all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake she had encountered peril.... ..In this manner our forbears, mentioned above, were acceptable and cherished a humble frame of mind toward the Father and God and Creator and all mankind. And we have all three more pleasure in recalling this to your memory because we are well aware that we are writing to persons who are believers and highly distinguished and deeply versed in the writings that contain God’s educative revelation.”

I posted Clement and others many times already in other threads, maybe some other time I'll post some more, it's kind of annoying texting out these quotes from a book of ante nicene church fathers, especially since it's always willingly over looked and dismissed as they really didn't mean what they said..

yes they did identify these books as sacred scripture, Jerome labeled them apocrypha, Luther put them in the back of the book along with 4 books from the NT, and eventually they disappeared completely from the KJV.. it is what it is I guess

 

[Andrew]

Just setting the record straight. Andrew stated:


YOU provided the dates, not me.

Arthur even clarified:


... Yet here we are in the very scholarly debate that I wanted no part of:





Since you insist ... why are there NO Hebrew fragments from the Prayer of Manasseh among the THOUSANDS of scroll fragments discovered hidden around Judea? Why are there no Hebrew quotes from the Prayer of Manasseh among the THOUSANDS of scroll fragments of commentaries

Why are there NO Hebrew fragments from the Prayer of Manasseh among the THOUSANDS of scroll fragments discovered hidden around Judea?
Why are there NO Hebrew quotes from the Prayer of Manasseh among the THOUSANDS of scroll fragments of commentaries discovered hidden around Judea?
Why are there NO Hebrew copies of the Prayer of Manasseh among the HUNDREDS of later scroll copies passed down by Jews?
Why are there NO Aramaic copies of the Prayer of Manasseh among the DOZENS of later scroll copies passed down by Jews?
Why are there NO Hebrew quotes from the Prayer of Manasseh among the Jewish commentaries passed down by Jews?

You are arguing that a single copy in Hebrew was preserved and passed down to Alexandria without being copied, translated, or quoted by any other group of Jews (including those in Jerusalem) and only survives in a Greek translation by a group that had no problem rewriting the earlier Hebrew scripture delivered by the prophets to add embellishments that they felt belonged. Our modern Old Testament is not based on the Jewish Mesoretic text. At the time of the KJV the OT was based on the Septuagint as the most complete manuscripts available in the Middle Ages. Since then, the Dead Sea scrolls and many other scroll fragments offer strong evidence that the Mesoretic text is closer to the earlier (pre-Septuagent) Hebrew texts. Modern translations are based on the OLDEST AVAILABLE manuscripts and "textural criticism" of the copies that identifies additions and copyist errors (often by comparing multiple manuscripts to how a text was translated into an obscure language at an early date).

I avoided a direct analysis of the Prayer on Manasseh because I have not done the scholarly research to offer an opinion. You stated when it was written and I took your statement as fact.
(I am not avoiding a theological discussion on the actual content of the prayer, I just have not had time to get there yet. I will probably respond to that in a new topic because it has nothing to do with Apocrypha vs Scripture, but simply what does the prayer actually say.)

Prayer of Manasseh is in the dead sea scrolls btw, the NT disagrees with our modern Masoretic, just look at a quote from the NT that quotes the OT, then look at the quote in the OT and see if they match up

The original Hebrew text that the Septuagint was copied from our all gone, the Masoretic is from a different and more recent Hebrew text, probably from after 70AD after the temple was destroyed, Christian writers were already discussing the issue of Jews ripping out scriptures and warning Christians not to be persuaded by their alterations

 

[Josiah]

Prayer of Manasseh is in the dead sea scrolls

LOTS of things are; most are not found in ANY tome with "BIBLE" on the cover.

 

[Josiah]

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians

Was "IN" many Christian Bibles.... along with MANY other books that not one denomination on the planet today accepts as canonical (or even deuterocanonical).

Your point was we should accept any book that once was seen by someone as "holy" (you seem to limit this only to the NT however). Well, you seem to be the only one alive to holds to that.



.

 

[atpollard]

Prayer of Manasseh is in the dead sea scrolls btw,

Not in Hebrew (like the REAL scripture containing Chronicles).

the NT disagrees with our modern Masoretic, just look at a quote from the NT that quotes the OT, then look at the quote in the OT and see if they match up.

During the Babylonian exile, most Jews lost the ability to read and write in Hebrew and Aramaic became the common language for spoken and written communication. With the later rise of Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire, Greek became the common trade language and a common second language for the literate. The Alexandrian translators compiled, translated and changed much of the original Hebrew text when they translated it into Greek so people other than a handful of elite scribes could read it. So Jesus and the Apostles likely spoke both Aramaic and Greek and they chose to write down Scripture in Greek. They do appear to have quoted from the Septuagint when quoting Scriptures in Greek, but that does not necessarily mean that Jesus spoke those exact Greek words. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic. So what the NT quotes proves more than anything else is that Greek was read and spoken and written far more than ancient Hebrew in the First Century. It does not prove that God inspired Moses and the Prophets to write the original autographs in Greek.

The original Hebrew text that the Septuagint was copied from our all gone, the Masoretic is from a different and more recent Hebrew text, probably from after 70AD after the temple was destroyed, Christian writers were already discussing the issue of Jews ripping out scriptures and warning Christians not to be persuaded by their alterations

The Dead Sea scrolls and other scroll fragments contain passages and books in Hebrew that predate the Greek Translation and some match the Masoretic text rather than the Greek text. What does it tell us if Hebrew scroll fragments from before the Greek translation more closely match the later Hebrew translation than they do the Greek translation?

 

[Josiah]

IF being "in" some tomes means it's the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice - then 1 and 2 Clement, the Revelation of Peter and at least a dozen other books not accepted by ANY church or denomination on the planet is also the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice.

If all the books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are ergo the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice then dozens of books are Scripture but not accepted as such by any Jew or by any church or denomination on the planet.

 

[Andrew]

IF being "in" some tomes means it's the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice - then 1 and 2 Clement, the Revelation of Peter and at least a dozen other books not accepted by ANY church or denomination on the planet is also the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice.

If all the books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are ergo the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice then dozens of books are Scripture but not accepted as such by any Jew or by any church or denomination on the planet.

Many NT writings were considered antilegomena at a time before it was canon and for good reason, gnostic "christian" books were being distributed at a time so a NT canon especially by the time of printing press was dearly needed, even Luther had doubts about certain NT books that did not seem fit because they promote "works" but antigomena simply means pending or disputed writings.

The Masoretic does not come from the original Hebrew source, the majority rules in favor of an earlier source of Hebrew text that the Septuagint was based on.

Why throw out the majority rule OT books over the Masoretic canon when clearly the first Christians including them in first Christianity writings?
They were slowly devalued and dropped over time but not without post christianity Jewish influence.

The GOSPEL remains solid, the authority of Gods Word of redemption and eternal Salvation through Christ is the only canon
just as the Torah is the final and only authority for the Jews.. do not think that I am adding or taking from Gods authority and our Heavenly doctrine of Redemption through Christ by believing what ECF wrote and believed.. but calling things "good to read" is what Luther said about James, his followers are the ones that disagreed with him on his "Apocrypha" appendix at the end of his german translations, which included several NT books.. We accept the NT gospels because the message is the same, no pre nicene writers disputed our NT books, nor did they dispute the books that were handed to them by God in the Greek translation of an original Hebrew Text that no longer exists.

 

[Josiah]

Many NT writings...

It seems your point is we should not "drop" from the list of canonical books if they were once regarded highly by some; if someone thought it "holy" (to use your word on this). Well, I simply pointed out that you do that. EVERYONE does. There were once a number of books that were "in" the NT in terms of functionality that NO ONE TODAY accepts and is ABSENT in every biblical tome in existence. 1 and 2 Clement were likely IN more tomes for centuries than was the Revelation of John but today.....

And you seem to be saying that if a book was part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then then should be in our OT. But there were MANY books among the Dead Sea Scrolls that aren't in ANY biblical tome - Jewish or Christian, ancient or modern. Again, your premise seems to be one you yourself reject.

even Luther had doubts about certain NT books

I regard this as irrelevant to this thread. He had exactly the SAME number of books in his personal German translation of the typical German tome than Catholics have today - he didn't include the Epistle to the Leodiceans but did include the Prayer of Manassah.


See post 131. It was universally accepted in the time of Luther (and for 1500 years before that) that not all books share the same status. This was true among Jews as well (still is!). The NT collection came to 27 books by the end of the 4th century, it IS possible to document they were seen as canonical (the rule, the norma normans for faith and practice) BUT they were not seen on the same level. There were some OF THE TWENTY-SEVEN that were "spoken in favor" (the 4 Gospels, Acts, the Letters of Paul, First Peter, First John) and there were some OF THE TWENTY-SEVEN "Spoken Against" based on how early and strong the embrace/acceptance (examples: James, Jude, 2 Peter, Revelation). EARLY when Luther misunderstood James, he simply did what everyone did - he submitted something from a "spoken against" book to something in a "spoken in favor" book - he subjected James to Romans. James (and Revelation) had a LONG, LONG tradition of being questioned and Luther expressed that early on. Luther (like Calvin) never abandoned this ancient distinction within the 27 but as I noted, Christianity has (for the reasons I expressed earlier). But you missed the point: Luther INCLUDED James and Revelation and 2 Peter and Jude in his personal German Translation.

I didn't speak of books IN the 27..... I spoke of books many (in some cases, nearly all) Christians used for CENTURIES that aren't in your 27 (or anyone's NT) today. They ONCE were "in" but aren't now. If we abide by your rubric of "if someone accepted it and thought of it as holy, we must do so today) is not something you are anyone else actually does. Or you would be campaigning for 1 & 2 Clement and SEVERAL other books. AND you might be compaigning to remove the Revelation of John which did NOT appear in many early tomes (the East didn't even include it in their lectionary until very recently).

The Masoretic ...

... has nothing to do with this, my friend, The issue is why some books (out of well over 100 candidates) ARE universally accepted as the inerrant, verbally inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and ERGO the rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice and why some are not; and especially, why are some accepted as MORE SO than others, why some are canonical and some DEUTEROcanonical.

clearly the first Christians including them in first Christianity writings?

You've not attempted to show that all Christians in the first 3 or 4 Centuries had "X" number of books that they regarded as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice. You haven't even told us what number "X" is and have not even attempted to list this. You've not shown that NO OTHER BOOK was ever quoted from or used or read or was found in Lectionaries.

calling things "good to read" is what Luther said about James

No. He shared the nearly universal opinion of his day that the DEUTERcanonical books..... EIGHT APOCRYPHA books..... THOSE 8 books..... are to be read, studied, used and may be used in lectionaries and sermon texts etc. but are not canonical but DEUTEROcanonical. It was his opinion. It was pretty much everyone's opinion. The Anglican Church made it dogma in the late 16th Century (Lutherans have never done ANYTHING with this view). Luther lived in a day when Biblical tomes had 3 levels: Spoken in favor canonical , spoken against canonical, and DEUTEROcanonical. Catholic tomes often had 28 books (the Epistle to the Leodiceans being regarded as spoken in favor canonical) and 8 DEUTEROcanonical. Trent dropped two of these - The Epistle to the Leodiceans and the Prayer of Manassah, but then there never was just one Catholic tome until well after Trent.

his followers are the ones that disagreed with him on his "Apocrypha" appendix

Lutherans have never done ANYTHING official with his personal opinion on those 8 books, read the Lutheran Confessions, they are PURPOSELY SILENT on this whole issue. SOME of the 300+ Lutheran denominations have affirmed 66 books (sometimes by name) but have been SILENT about the 7 or 8 or 10 or 13 or 14 or 15 or however many "them" you want to talk about.

But Luther's tome became universally used by Lutherans until the 20th Century. It was translated into every language Lutherans used (even many third-world languages as Lutheran missionaries took his tome with them to foreign countries). American Lutherans use his tome - translated into Swedish, Danish, Icelantic, English and more. And it ALWAYS included those 8 DEUTERO books. But in the early 20th Century, American Lutherans began to use the AV English version, and while the original AV had 14 DEUTERO books in it, most American editions did not. Lutherans - buying their tomes from local book stores that only had AV's with 66 books in it, thus bought AV's with 66 books in them. It's that easy.

BUT Lutheran publishing houses still have the 8 Deutero books available (I personally own The Lutheran Study Bible put out by Concordia Publishing House in two volumns - and it includes the 8). CPH also publishes studies of the 8. And yes, some Lutheran lectionaries including readings from the 8.

I see zero evidence that the worlds 75 million Lutherans officially hold that the 8 are NOT to be read or that the 8 are equal to say the Epistle to the Romans. Your statement appears to be very wrong.




.