In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

[Josiah]

The eastern GREEK Orthodox also accept the books of the Maccabees.

The GREEK Orthodox church does NOT accept any of those regional, Latin, western councils you (alone) confuse with one of the 3-7 ECUMENICAL Councils. No one in the Eastern church does as you insist we do: submit to regional, western, LATIN meetings of Bishops in submission to the Pope.

There is NO Eastern Church that embraces ANYTHING "apocrypha" and NONE of them has the same canon as the post-Trent RCC one. Each of them has a UNIQUE tome, DIFFERENT from any mentioned by those Councils you think all submit to (or should) but you don't.. I realize you have reasons you won't list the books you are talking about, and one of those is that none agrees with you.... Yes, the RCC also has some of the Maccabee books (not the same number as some Orthodox churchs) but then Calvin's list also has Genesis in it - so I don't know why "least common denominator" is the determining factor, since your rubic appears to be: what books to ALL denominations accept, you'd be fighting for John Calvin's list (and shooting yourself in the foot..... again). Yes, all Christian Bibles have Matthew in it... not all have 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees. But I think this new "what do ALL bible contain" point of yours is valid for proving one of the 3-7 Ecumenical Councils determined what books are or are not fully canonical.


Now read post 56, 57 and 58. Your desire to ignore what is posted to you and perpetually keep changing the issue and divert the discussion ... well, makes it impossible to discuss your points (but maybe that's your reason). You need a longer attention span and focus (and ceasing "the shell game") if we're ever to accomplish anything.



.

 

[Josiah]

ORIGEN,

You have the patience of a saint. I'm amazed. I truly am.

And while I may well be the only one reading your posts, I do. I really appreciate your fine, fine work.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Correct on all points.



EXCELLENT POINT! Augustine, for example, has a much more reasonable and sane view of the matter.

“However, if I ask them which of the two is more credible, that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have unanimously conspired to forge this lie, and so, though envying others the authority of their Scriptures, have deprived themselves of their verity; or that seventy men, who were also themselves Jews, shut up in one place (for Ptolemy king of Egypt had got them together for this work), should have envied foreign nations that same truth, and by common consent inserted these errors: who does not see which can be more naturally and readily believed? But far be it from any prudent man to believe either that the Jews, however malicious and wrong-headed, could have tampered with so many and so widely-dispersed manuscripts; or that those renowned seventy individuals had any common purpose to grudge truth to the nations. One must therefore more plausibly maintain, that when first their labors began to be transcribed from the copy in Ptolemy’s library, some such misstatement might find its way into the first copy made, and from it might be disseminated far and wide; and that this might arise from no fraud, but from a mere copyist’s error."

"Accordingly, that diversity of numbers which distinguishes the Hebrew from the Greek and Latin copies of Scripture, and which consists of a uniform addition and deduction of 100 years in each lifetime for several consecutive generations, is to be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to men so diligent and prudent as the seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who was first allowed to transcribe the manuscript from the library of the above-mentioned king. For even now, in cases where numbers contribute nothing to the easier comprehension or more satisfactory knowledge of anything, they are both carelessly transcribed, and still more carelessly emended." City of God, book 15, chapeter 13)

First, Augustine rejects the idea it was the Jews who changed the text. He makes it clear that such a claim is simply not credible. Second, according to Augustine these difference came about because of scribal errors.

How do you suppose that Abraham was “old and full of years” at 175 while his great great great great grandfather Heber was still chugging away at 460?

 

[NathanH83]

Correct on all points.



EXCELLENT POINT! Augustine, for example, has a much more reasonable and sane view of the matter.

“However, if I ask them which of the two is more credible, that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have unanimously conspired to forge this lie, and so, though envying others the authority of their Scriptures, have deprived themselves of their verity; or that seventy men, who were also themselves Jews, shut up in one place (for Ptolemy king of Egypt had got them together for this work), should have envied foreign nations that same truth, and by common consent inserted these errors: who does not see which can be more naturally and readily believed? But far be it from any prudent man to believe either that the Jews, however malicious and wrong-headed, could have tampered with so many and so widely-dispersed manuscripts; or that those renowned seventy individuals had any common purpose to grudge truth to the nations. One must therefore more plausibly maintain, that when first their labors began to be transcribed from the copy in Ptolemy’s library, some such misstatement might find its way into the first copy made, and from it might be disseminated far and wide; and that this might arise from no fraud, but from a mere copyist’s error."

"Accordingly, that diversity of numbers which distinguishes the Hebrew from the Greek and Latin copies of Scripture, and which consists of a uniform addition and deduction of 100 years in each lifetime for several consecutive generations, is to be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to men so diligent and prudent as the seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who was first allowed to transcribe the manuscript from the library of the above-mentioned king. For even now, in cases where numbers contribute nothing to the easier comprehension or more satisfactory knowledge of anything, they are both carelessly transcribed, and still more carelessly emended." City of God, book 15, chapeter 13)

First, Augustine rejects the idea it was the Jews who changed the text. He makes it clear that such a claim is simply not credible. Second, according to Augustine these difference came about because of scribal errors.

I find it interesting that you prefer Augustine, who did NOT attend the Council of Nicaea, but you reject Eusebius who DID attend the Council of Nicaea.

I tend to think that Eusebius probably had a better grasp on what the early church fathers at the Council of Nicaea believed, since…HE WAS THERE.

 

[Origen]

I find it interesting that you prefer Augustine

I merely point out Augustine's very reasonable view of the matter.

who did NOT attend the Council of Nicaea

Your point is just plain silly. The council of Nicaea was held in 325. Augustine wasn't even born until 354.

but you reject Eusebius who DID attend the Council of Nicaea.

First, I never said I rejected Eusebius. I simply point out Augustine's alternative view.

Second, you reject Athanasius's canon list and he was at Council of Nicaea. Physician heal yourself.

I tend to think that Eusebius probably had a better grasp on what the early church fathers at the Council of Nicaea believed, since…HE WAS THERE.

Again, all you do is invent claims you cannot support. You have no idea what all those fathers (around 300 of them) thought on the topic nor does Eusebius inform what each one believed.

 

[Origen]

How do you suppose that Abraham was “old and full of years” at 175 while his great great great great grandfather Heber was still chugging away at 460?

That question amounts to nothing more than the fallacy argument from incredulity.

 

[NathanH83]

I merely point out Augustine's very reasonable view of the matter.


Your point is just plain silly. The council of Nicaea was held in 325. Augustine wasn't even born until 354.


First, I never said I rejected Eusebius. I simply point out Augustine's alternative view.

Second, you reject Athanasius's canon list and he was at Council of Nicaea. Physician heal yourself.


Again, all you do is invent claims you cannot support. You have no idea what all those fathers (around 300 of them) thought on the topic nor does Eusebius inform what each one believed.

Exactly. Augustine wasn’t even born yet. He wasn’t at the Council of Nicaea. He couldn’t be.

Ask yourself if it makes sense if Abraham was “old and full of years” at 175 while Heber is still living at 460.

The timeline in the Septuagint makes a lot more sense. Even the Samaritan Bible and Josephus agree more with the numbers in the LXX in Genesis 11.

 

[NathanH83]

That question amounts to nothing more than the fallacy argument from incredulity.

Actually it has nothing to do with incredulity. But rather, it has to do with the fact that the Bible is telling us that 175 was an old age for men living in Abraham’s generation.

If there were 460 year-old men living at the time of Abraham’s death, then it would not be a true statement that Abraham was old and full of years.

If my grandpa died at 84 in today’s generation, you could say he died old and full of years. But if he died in the years before the flood, when people were living to 900, then you would not say he died “old and full of years” at 84. You would say he died relatively young.

 

[NathanH83]

I merely point out Augustine's very reasonable view of the matter.


Your point is just plain silly. The council of Nicaea was held in 325. Augustine wasn't even born until 354.


First, I never said I rejected Eusebius. I simply point out Augustine's alternative view.

Second, you reject Athanasius's canon list and he was at Council of Nicaea. Physician heal yourself.


Again, all you do is invent claims you cannot support. You have no idea what all those fathers (around 300 of them) thought on the topic nor does Eusebius inform what each one believed.

I don’t think Athanasius commented on the genealogies of Genesis 11. So there’s no way for me to agree or disagree with him on that point.

As for Athanasius’ list of canonical books, it would be difficult for me to accept his list, since he excludes Esther and calls it non-canonical. I really like the book of Esther, and would have a hard time ripping that out of my Bible and throwing it in the trash. Looking at the later councils and their acceptance of Esther, I tend to think his view is not consistent with the rest of Christianity.

#logic

 

[Albion]

Actually it has nothing to do with incredulity. But rather, it has to do with the fact that the Bible is telling us that 175 was an old age for men living in Abraham’s generation.

If there were 460 year-old men living at the time of Abraham’s death, then it would not be a true statement that Abraham was old and full of years.

If my grandpa died at 84 in today’s generation, you could say he died old and full of years. But if he died in the years before the flood, when people were living to 900, then you would not say he died “old and full of years” at 84. You would say he died relatively young.

Not necessarily. In our own society, we have a way of classifying younger people as being of a different generation if they are even several years older or younger than the group they're being compared against. But a person is considered old most of his life. You're called old in your 50s, and definitely when you are in your 60s, and you're said to be old when 70, then 80, then 90. ALL OF THEM ARE "old," even if people who are 90 or 100 are especially noteworthy as oldsters...just as with the example you gave us.

 

[NathanH83]

Not necessarily. In our own society, we have a way of classifying younger people as being of a different generation if they are even several years older or younger than the group they're being compared against. But a person is considered old most of his life. You're called old in your 50s, and definitely when you are in your 60s, and you're said to be old when 70, then 80, then 90. ALL OF THEM ARE "old," even if people who are 90 or 100 are especially noteworthy as oldsters...just as with the example you gave us.

If my grandpa died at 84, and I died at 35, you would not say I died “old and full of years.”

Abraham was less than half the age of Heber. Heber died at 464. Abraham died at 175. Half of 464 is 232. Abraham wasn’t even that old. But he died Old and FULL of years???

 

[TonyC7]

The following is a good representation of what I believe on this topic and can be found at this site...

The Apocrypha

The Apocrypha are made up of two groups of writings not included in the Protestant canon of Scripture, the OT apocryphal books, and the NT apocryphal books.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

The fact that the Jews limited their Scriptures to the Hebrew canon should not come as a surprise given that there was an established belief that inspired prophecy had ceased by the time of the fourth century BC. This sentiment is evident even within the OT Apocrypha itself (1 Macc. 4:46; prologue to Sirach), as well as other Jewish sources like Josephus (, 1:8), and later rabbinic writings ( 48b).

Regarding early Christians, it seems they at first accepted the Hebrew canon as delivered by their Jewish forbearers. Melito of Sardis, the Bryennios list, and Origen all appear to affirm the same general OT canon we know today, though Origen acknowledges that the books of the Apocrypha can still be profitably read by the church (though not as Scripture) (see Eusebius, . 4.26.13, 6.24.1-2). Augustine goes further, arguing that the Apocrypha should be regarded as among the scriptural books ( 2.8). Some of earliest Christian codices and canonical lists also include the OT Apocrypha (for example, the Council of Carthage; codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

But other early Christians continued to insist that the original Hebrew canon was, and always had been, the right one. Jerome led the way, agreeing that the apocryphal books were useful but arguing that the church “does not receive them among the canonical scriptures” ().

Throughout the middle ages, views of the Apocrypha among Christians were mixed. But during the time of the Reformation the two sides clashed. Due to the fact that the Apocrypha was the basis for many controversial doctrines (e.g., purgatory), the Reformers revisited the issue of which books were properly Scripture, concluding that the OT Apocrypha should not be the basis for Christian doctrine.

It seems to me that they canonized it at the Council of Trent in response to Protestantism calling out the Catholic Church for their tendency to make doctrine without Scripture.

 

[NathanH83]

The following is a good representation of what I believe on this topic and can be found at this site...

The Apocrypha

The Apocrypha are made up of two groups of writings not included in the Protestant canon of Scripture, the OT apocryphal books, and the NT apocryphal books.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

The fact that the Jews limited their Scriptures to the Hebrew canon should not come as a surprise given that there was an established belief that inspired prophecy had ceased by the time of the fourth century BC. This sentiment is evident even within the OT Apocrypha itself (1 Macc. 4:46; prologue to Sirach), as well as other Jewish sources like Josephus (, 1:8), and later rabbinic writings ( 48b).

Regarding early Christians, it seems they at first accepted the Hebrew canon as delivered by their Jewish forbearers. Melito of Sardis, the Bryennios list, and Origen all appear to affirm the same general OT canon we know today, though Origen acknowledges that the books of the Apocrypha can still be profitably read by the church (though not as Scripture) (see Eusebius, . 4.26.13, 6.24.1-2). Augustine goes further, arguing that the Apocrypha should be regarded as among the scriptural books ( 2.8). Some of earliest Christian codices and canonical lists also include the OT Apocrypha (for example, the Council of Carthage; codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

But other early Christians continued to insist that the original Hebrew canon was, and always had been, the right one. Jerome led the way, agreeing that the apocryphal books were useful but arguing that the church “does not receive them among the canonical scriptures” ().

Throughout the middle ages, views of the Apocrypha among Christians were mixed. But during the time of the Reformation the two sides clashed. Due to the fact that the Apocrypha was the basis for many controversial doctrines (e.g., purgatory), the Reformers revisited the issue of which books were properly Scripture, concluding that the OT Apocrypha should not be the basis for Christian doctrine.

It seems to me that they canonized it at the Council of Trent in response to Protestantism calling out the Catholic Church for their tendency to make doctrine without Scripture.

Did you say that Origen affirms the SAME Old Testament list that we know today?

If that’s the case, then why does Origen call 2 Maccabees “holy scripture”?

Origen de Principiis book 2 ch 1.5 (185- 254ad)

"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, "I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist."

Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books

The Early Church Fathers on various topics: This was a 3700 hour project which included going through 22896 pages of the 38 volume set call...

practicalapologetics.blogspot.com

Doesn’t sound to me that Origen had the SAME list.

Doesn’t sound like Melito had the SAME list either, since his list omitted Esther.

If you’re really going to take the advice of Origen and Melito, well then rip out Esther and add in 2 Maccabees!!

 

[Origen]

I don’t think Athanasius commented on the genealogies of Genesis 11. So there’s no way for me to agree or disagree with him on that point.

As for Athanasius’ list of canonical books, it would be difficult for me to accept his list, since he excludes Esther and calls it non-canonical. I really like the book of Esther, and would have a hard time ripping that out of my Bible and throwing it in the trash. Looking at the later councils and their acceptance of Esther, I tend to think his view is not consistent with the rest of Christianity.

You stated:
"I find it interesting that you prefer Augustine, who did NOT attend the Council of Nicaea, but you reject Eusebius who DID attend the Council of Nicaea.
I tend to think that Eusebius probably had a better grasp on what the early church fathers at the Council of Nicaea believed, since…HE WAS THERE."

I was following your line of though. If Eusebius merely being present at Council of Nicaea somehow shows he "probably had a better grasp on what the early church fathers at the Council of Nicaea," then the same idea follows in regard to Athanasius’ list of canonical books.

In other words, if what you said were true concerning Eusebius (although its not), then the same thought would also be true for Athanasius.

 

[Origen]

Actually it has nothing to do with incredulity.

Sorry but it does. An argument from incredulity "asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine."

 

[Origen]

Exactly. Augustine wasn’t even born yet. He wasn’t at the Council of Nicaea. He couldn’t be.

Your point makes zero sense. There is no reason in bringing up the fact that Augustine at wasn’t at the Council of Nicaea as proof of something (which is exactly what you did), when there is no way he could have been at the council since he hadn't even been born yet. Your claim was pointless and made no rational sense. The fact that is wasn't there proves nothing.

Ask yourself if it makes sense if Abraham was “old and full of years” at 175 while Heber is still living at 460.

Again, an argument from incredulity "asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." That is just what you are doing.

 

[NathanH83]

You stated:
"I find it interesting that you prefer Augustine, who did NOT attend the Council of Nicaea, but you reject Eusebius who DID attend the Council of Nicaea.
I tend to think that Eusebius probably had a better grasp on what the early church fathers at the Council of Nicaea believed, since…HE WAS THERE."

I was following your line of though. If Eusebius merely being present at Council of Nicaea somehow shows he "probably had a better grasp on what the early church fathers at the Council of Nicaea," then the same idea follows in regard to Athanasius’ list of canonical books.

In other words, if what you said were true concerning Eusebius (although its not), then the same thought would also be true for Athanasius.

But it wasn’t just Eusebius who defended the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 11, in regards to the inclusion of the 650 years. Africanus also agreed with the Septuagint. He lived in the 3rd century. Theophilus also agreed with the Septuagint’s numbers. He lived in the 2nd century. And then Josephus, who was given the Hebrew Scrolls from the temple in the 1st century, he also agreed with the Septuagint’s numbers in Genesis 11.

So yes, all these guys from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries agreed with the Septuagint’s numbers in Genesis 11.
Augustine’s view on the matter really is a minority opinion, and is not representative of what the church believed as a whole.

 

[NathanH83]

Your point makes zero sense. There is no reason in bringing up the fact that Augustine at wasn’t at the Council of Nicaea as proof of something (which is exactly what you did), when there is no way he could have been at the council since he hadn't even been born yet. Your claim was pointless and made no rational sense. The fact that is wan't there proves nothing.


Again, an argument from incredulity "asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." That is just what you are doing.

Nope. Wrong again.
Incredulity has nothing to do with it.
It has to do with believing what the Bible says.

The Bible says Abraham died Old and full of years. This means that 175 really is an old age in Abraham’s day. But if there’s a 460 year-old man still alive at this time, then 175 is not an old age to die. That’s not “full of years.”

In the LXX, Heber died 500 years before Abraham. In his generation, people really were living into their 400’s. I do NOT find that incredulous.

But centuries later, the age of man was cut short. So by the time Abraham died, people were only living into their 100’s, as we see with Sarah dying at 127, and Isaac dying at 180.

And this timeline in the LXX was defended by a 1st century Jewish historian, and early church fathers/historians from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries.

It is perfectly reasonable to suspect that the LXX has the more accurate chronology.

 

[Origen]

Incredulity has nothing to do with it.

An argument from incredulity "asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine." That is just what you have done.

 

[Origen]

So yes, all these guys from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries agreed with the Septuagint’s numbers in Genesis 11.
Augustine’s view on the matter really is a minority opinion, and is not representative of what the church believed as a whole.

You have committed ANOTHER fallacy, argumentum ad populum.