When they say that the Apocryphal books don’t belong in the Bible, who’s authority is that based on?

[NathanH83]

Is that based on the authority of an early church council or a modern day council?

 

[Josiah]

Is that based on the authority of an early church council or a modern day council?

WHICH "apocryphal" books? There are not two denominations on the planet that agree on that question... there NEVER has been.... NO denomination that accepts ANY deutercanonical book agrees with ANY BUT IT ITSELF EXCLUSIVELY on this issue.


Any publisher can put anything in any book it wants. Mine includes numerous introductions.... notations.... articles...maps...a nice concordance... and more. Any any publisher can leave out whatever it wants. Some Bibles don't have an Old Testament in them, for example. What law requires what a publishing house can and can't put into a book?


There has been no "church council" (in the early church or the modern one) that has authoritatively determined anything on this point. The LDS in the mid 19th Century declared what is and is not Scripture but no other denomination was involved in this and none but Mormons agree with it. The Westminister Confession lists a bunch of books as "IN" (but says nothing about any others) but that was a decision not of the church but of one denomination. The Anglican Church in its own unique 39 Articles does the same thing (creating a two-teared collection - some canonical and some deuterocanonical) but no other denomination was involved and NO non-anglicans agree with the decision. The RCC came up with its own collection at the Council of Trent but no other denomination was involved and NO non-Catholics agree with it. There have been at most 7 authoritative councils of "the church".... Which declaration that was UNIVERSALLY accepted then and now by ALL Christians as binding and authoritative and decisive declared "The Books Nathan thinks should be included with any book with BIBLE on the cover ARE the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE are the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice all equally and fully, and NO OTHER material may be found between the covers of such a tome or read by Christians".... which Authoritative, Official, Decisive Ecumenical declaration always followed by every Christian from 30 AD through 2021AD stated that?


QUESTION: By what Authority can YOU (as a private, individual, singular person) have to tell The Church (or any person, congregation or denomination) what is and is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norma normans equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? Why YOU?





.

 

[NathanH83]

WHICH "apocryphal" books? There are not two denominations on the planet that agree on that question... there NEVER has been.... NO denomination that accepts ANY deutercanonical book agrees with ANY BUT IT ITSELF EXCLUSIVELY on this issue.


Any publisher can put anything in any book it wants. Mine includes numerous introductions.... notations.... articles...maps...a nice concordance... and more. Any any publisher can leave out whatever it wants. Some Bibles don't have an Old Testament in them, for example. What law requires what a publishing house can and can't put into a book?


There has been no "church council" (in the early church or the modern one) that has authoritatively determined anything on this point. The LDS in the mid 19th Century declared what is and is not Scripture but no other denomination was involved in this and none but Mormons agree with it. The Westminister Confession lists a bunch of books as "IN" (but says nothing about any others) but that was a decision not of the church but of one denomination. The Anglican Church in its own unique 39 Articles does the same thing (creating a two-teared collection - some canonical and some deuterocanonical) but no other denomination was involved and NO non-anglicans agree with the decision. The RCC came up with its own collection at the Council of Trent but no other denomination was involved and NO non-Catholics agree with it. There have been at most 7 authoritative councils of "the church" but NONE of them addressed this issue... and "the church" does not always accept all the rulings of all 7 (most denominations in fact accept none of them).


QUESTION: By what Authority can YOU (as a private, individual, singular person) have to tell The Church (or any person, congregation or denomination) what is and is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norma normans equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? Why YOU?





.

That doesn’t answer my question.

 

[Josiah]

That doesn’t answer my question.

That didn't answer my questions.



.

 

[NathanH83]

That didn't answer my questions.



.

By whose authority?

 

[Andrew]

Josiah you always dodge the question with the same repetitive question.

The LXX/Septuagint, you can buy the direct "theological university" Greek and English translation on Ebay for 20 dollars.

We are tired of listing the books over and over for you, buy the copy, and no, "odes" is not part of it (it's dated even after the Masoretic) because that's always your defense.. why are you so scared to watch his video anyway? All of your questions are answered there..
I believe you have a dogmatic approach to early Christendom history that you justify inappropriately through your churches theology, if you really have faith that Nathan has it wrong then you could take a moment to watch his lecture with confidence instead of making excuses via asking the same question.. which I had answered once again for you.

 

[Andrew]

@Josiah

 

[Josiah]

The LXX/Septuagint, you can buy the direct "theological university" Greek and English translation on Ebay for 20 dollars.

Entirely irrelevant to this thread. This thread is not about ANY translation of anything anywhere.

We are tired of listing the books over and over for you

There is not one denomination on the planet that officially embraces all the books ever associated with the LXX translation as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Check the Council of Trent of the RCC.... Check the Westminister Confession of the Reformed churches... check the 39 Articles of the Anglican Communion.... check ANY denominationn, check any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.... NOT ONE so mentions as even mentions the LXX... not one officially embraces all the books associated with that translation.... and NEVER HAS.

Just because YOU (and maybe Nathan), you two people feel some books should be included in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover - and nothing else - does not mean THE CHURCH agrees with you two OR EVER HAS, it does NOT mean that the Holy Spirit has guided you two and you two inerrantly follow Him on this.

why are you so scared to watch his video anyway?

I watched it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread. Or any other thread at CH.





.

 

[Andrew]

So it has nothing to do with the Septuagint which contain the common so called apocrypha books?
Did you know that the Jews put those books in the Septuagint?

 

[NathanH83]

Entirely irrelevant to this thread. This thread is not about ANY translation of anything anywhere.






There is not one denomination on the planet that officially embraces all the books ever associated with the LXX translation as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Check the Council of Trent of the RCC.... Check the Westminister Confession of the Reformed churches... check the 39 Articles of the Anglican Communion.... check ANY denominationn, check any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.... NOT ONE so mentions as even mentions the LXX... not one officially embraces all the books associated with that translation.... and NEVER HAS.

Just because YOU (and maybe Nathan), you two people feel some books should be included in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover - and nothing else - does not mean THE CHURCH agrees with you two OR EVER HAS, it does NOT mean that the Holy Spirit has guided you two and you two inerrantly follow Him on this.





I watched it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread. Or any other thread at CH.





.

That doesn’t answer my question. Whose authority?

 

[Josiah]

So it has nothing to do with the Septuagint

This thread is not about ANY translation of ANYTHING from ANY language into ANY language.

Nor is it about what ANY non-Christian(s) may or may not have done in some universal and authoritative way. Ever.


There is not one denomination on the planet that officially embraces all the books ever associated with the LXX translation as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Check the Council of Trent of the RCC.... Check the Westminister Confession of the Reformed churches... check the 39 Articles of the Anglican Communion.... check ANY denomination, check any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.... NOT ONE so mentions as even mentions the LXX... not one officially embraces all the books associated with that translation.... and NEVER HAS.

Just because YOU (and maybe Nathan), you two people, happen to feel some books should be included in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover - and nothing else - does not mean THE CHURCH agrees with you two OR EVER HAS, it does NOT mean that the Holy Spirit has guided you two and you two inerrantly follow Him on this.





.

 

[NathanH83]

This thread is not about ANY translation of ANYTHING from ANY language into ANY language.

Nor is it about what ANY non-Christian(s) may or may not have done in some universal and authoritative way. Ever.


There is not one denomination on the planet that officially embraces all the books ever associated with the LXX translation as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Check the Council of Trent of the RCC.... Check the Westminister Confession of the Reformed churches... check the 39 Articles of the Anglican Communion.... check ANY denomination, check any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.... NOT ONE so mentions as even mentions the LXX... not one officially embraces all the books associated with that translation.... and NEVER HAS.

Just because YOU (and maybe Nathan), you two people, happen to feel some books should be included in every tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover - and nothing else - does not mean THE CHURCH agrees with you two OR EVER HAS, it does NOT mean that the Holy Spirit has guided you two and you two inerrantly follow Him on this.





.

Whose authority?

 

[atpollard]

By whose authority?

Jesus’ Authority.

 

[atpollard]

“When they say that the Apocryphal books don’t belong in the Bible, who’s authority is that based on?”

Is that based on the authority of an early church council or a modern day council?

That depends, which “they” are saying which “Apocryphal books” do not belong?
Different “they” have different reasons for saying different “books” do not belong.

 

[hedrick]

Historically, the canon is primarily those books that a given church uses in worship. It hasn't normally been a formal decision, but what became customary. E.g. because the church after the first few decades were primarily Gentile, they used the standard Greek Old Testament. It included the Deuterocanonical books. Not all copies were the same, so various eastern Orthodox communities have slightly different sets of books. I don't get the impression that the OT canon was ever seen as a big issue in the early days.

It became controversial during the Reformation. The Reformers wanted to move back closer to the Apostles. As part of that they started using the OT in Hebrew. But the Hebrew canon is smaller than the Greek canon. Jews had a different attitude towards the canon than modern Protestants: they had different levels of attention, with the Torah being the heart, followed by the prophets and the "writings." The later books never made it into Hebrew, but became part of the Greek OT, but wouldn't have been regarded as at the same level as the Torah.

Protestants, however, with sola scriptura, began to see all of Scripture as authoritative. As this developed over the next generation or two of Protestants, the canon became very critical. If you could take any verse of the BIble and use it to establish doctrine, it matters very much what is in the Bible.

I believe the absence of the D-C books started out as a consequence of moving to the Hebrew OT. But since key texts for a few Catholic doctrines were present in the D-C books, it turned into an ideological issue. For that reason, around the Reformation there was authoritative decisions about the canon. On the Catholic side this was done at Trent. On the Protestant side, many of the confessions list the books. Interestingly, the early Lutheran tradition left the canon open. Lutheran confessions don't include a specific list, and until fairly recently Lutherans were free to disagree. As conservative Christianity has coalesced around Evangelical theology, conservative Lutherans have de facto mandated the usual Protestant canon.

Mainline Protestants have an attitude closer to the original Jewish one. We look at each book critically. We don't make doctrine from individual passages, but look how concepts are used throughout Scripture. In the process we may see that different authors take different views. We tend to prioritize, giving the Gospels first priority and then Paul. We use the OT only with care. So a few books more or less aren't big deal to us, if they aren't key books (e.g. the Gospels, the undisputed letters of Paul, the major prophets).