A P O C R Y P H A : Included in every Holy Bible from the 4th century AD to the 19th Century AD

[Andrew]

The King James 1611 included them, the Geneva bible, ALL bibles included them for the majorty of Christendom... were they ignorant dummies and conspiracy theorists when they became concerned that the Jews were removing them when they obviously quote them in their Targums and in the dead sea scrolls? Jospehus included who soley spoke Greek and used the Greek Septuagint?

 

[Albion]

Andrew, you've done well to describe the issue as you have done here...

The King James 1611 included them, the Geneva bible, ALL bibles included them for the majorty of Christendom...

"Included." That's because, in the fourth century, these books were not determined to be part of Holy Scripture. That's what made possible the rejection of these writings by the Protestant reformers during the sixteen century and the expulsion and reworking of some of them by the Roman Catholic Church in response.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew, you've done well to describe the issue as you have done here...

"Included." That's because, in the fourth century, these books were not determined to be part of Holy Scripture. That's what made possible the rejection of these writings by the Protestant reformers during the sixteen century and the expulsion and reworking of some of them by the Roman Catholic Church in response.

It was included because it was included in the "bibles" before, in that sense I can say that any books of the Bible were at one point "included"

 

[Albion]

It was included because it was included in the "bibles" before, in that sense I can say that any books of the Bible were at one point "included"

No, That's not the case. Not only was that not the Christian litmus test, but it also isn't the case that the Hebrews themselves were agreed on whether those books were inspired or not.

I agree to the idea that the Apocryphal books were "included" in the sense of being under the same cover ALONG WITH the Bible books in publications up to the time of the Reformation. However, that's not to say they were considered to be of equal authority with the Bible books.

 

[Andrew]

No, That's not the case. Not only was that not the Christian litmus test, but it also isn't the case that the Hebrews themselves were agreed on whether those books were inspired or not.

I agree to the idea that the Apocryphal books were "included" in the sense of being under the same cover ALONG WITH the Bible books in publications up to the time of the Reformation. However, that's not to say they were considered to be of equal authority with the Bible books.

The last I checked the Jews who settled the canon after Christ were never part of the Church anyway and according to their canon, all things written between the hellenistic era up to greek NT times were cut off even though they are of Jewish origin.

However, "the churches" according to traditions passed down from the apostles, were using the Greek OT as their OT Bible.

Jerome even made it clear that his job was to translate from the Hebrew canon at that time, he could only translate from what they had, thus why he never attacks the church but instead states "such and suchs books are not to be found among the Hebrew"
Did the RCC ever agree to have them removed from the Holy books? No. They didn't.
They were still Church tradition and considered Holy Scripture to be read in church.

The true Apocrypha books were forbidden in the church, they were the apocalyptic books falsely attributed to biblically characters.

 

[Albion]

The last I checked the Jews who settled the canon after Christ were never part of the Church anyway and according to their canon, all things written between the hellenistic era up to greek NT times were cut off even though they are of Jewish origin.

I was speaking to the Jews' understanding of the Apocrypha prior to the coming of Christ.

Both before and after the Incarnation, the Jewish community was divided, therefore nothing can be derived from that source which would be compelling when it comes to the possible inclusion of these books in the Holy Bible.

Did the RCC ever agree to have them removed from the Holy books? No.

It's Yes. See the previous post.

Not only were these books carried only provisionally in publications of the Bible following the several Councils that canonized the Bible books in the fourth century, but as noted before, the Catholic Church removed some of them in the sixteenth century. She could not possibly have justified such a move if these books had ever been determined by her to be inspired writings.

They were still Church tradition and considered Holy Scripture to be read in church.

That's not true. For one thing, not everything that is done in church as a matter of "tradition" has the weight of Sacred Tradition when it comes to the Roman Catholic approach to setting doctrine.

In addition, the fact that there are readings in the Church from the Apocrypha--as there also are in the Lutheran and Anglican churches--does not in any way mean that these writings are inspired. I'd suggest a reading of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion for a clearcut explanation of that issue if it is still cloudy.

 

[NathanH83]

Andrew, you've done well to describe the issue as you have done here...

"Included." That's because, in the fourth century, these books were not determined to be part of Holy Scripture. That's what made possible the rejection of these writings by the Protestant reformers during the sixteen century and the expulsion and reworking of some of them by the Roman Catholic Church in response.

What are you talking about? The 4th century is precisely the time when many church councils authoritatively declared these books to be divine canonical scripture. Only 1 council that I know of in the 4th century rejected them. 3 councils accepted them. You don’t know church history.

Granted those were just local councils. But you’re making it sound like everybody rejected them. That’s a lie.

 

[Albion]

What are you talking about?

The canonization of Scripture by several Church councils.

The 4th century is precisely the time when many church councils authoritatively declared these books to be divine canonical scripture.

Just as I said.

Only 1 council that I know of in the 4th century rejected them. 3 councils accepted them. You don’t know church history.

LOL

Granted those were just local councils. But you’re making it sound like everybody rejected them. That’s a lie.

I said no such thing.

 

[Lanman87]

The books were included as devotional/historic material. There was never consensus on if they considered authoritative/without error/for doctrine. There was a debate within the Catholic Church throughout the middle ages on if they deserved to be "cannonized".

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus. The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion.

After the reformation, most protestants followed the group that didn't believe they belonged in the Canon, but are great devotional/historic books. While the Roman Catholic church placed them firmly in the Canon at the Council of Trent.

What is interesting is that virtually all of Christianity has come to a consensus on New Testament Scripture. While there is still great divide about the books of the Old Testament, at least a half dozen or so anyway. Which is why the Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments are slightly different among each group. With the Protestants having the fewest books and the Eastern Orthodox having the most.

 

[Josiah]

The King James 1611 included them

Andrew,


1. What "THEM?" List every book mentioned in the 1611 KJV (as suggested by the Thirty Nine Articles of the unique Church of England). Is THIS specific list of books what you mean by "apocrypha?" If so, then NO Christians (other than members of the singular Church of England) shared that set of books - and they didn't as fully canonical.


2. HOW does the KJV include them? As WHAT? As the inerrant, fully canonical (manditory to norm and source DOGMA) divinely inscripturated words of God OR simply as useful and good to read?

ALL bibles included them for the majorty of Christendom...

1. Prove to us that ALL Bibles among Christians included the exact identical books contained in the 1611 KVJ - no others, no less, no more.


2 Prove to us that ALL Bibles among Christians included 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh (which ARE in the 1611 King James Bible of the unique, singular Church of England).


3. Prove to us that all Christians accepted all 76 books of the 1611 Bible of the Church of England as specifically inerrant, fully canonical (equal to say Genesis or Romans as THE norm and source for DOGMA) - not simply good to read but fully canonical (for THAT purpose). After all, being in a book is not an official declaration that everything between the covers is EQUAL in every way.

they obviouy quote them

1. Prove that every time a Jew quotes from some work (say 2 Esdras or 3 Maccabees or the Prayer of Manasseh, The Book of the Wars of the Lord, The Acts of Solomon, the Acts of Uziah, the Acts of the Kings of Israel, Annals of King David, the Book of Gad, the Book of Jashar, the Book of Judu - ALL books quoted and referenced in the OT itself by Jews). ERGO it MUST be accepted by all Christians everywhere and in every time as THE inerrant, fully-canonical (for that use), inscripturated words of God. If we must accept every work quoted by Jews (even in the Bible!) as inerrant, fully-canonical, inscripturated words of God, then the KJV should have a few dozen more books in it and your insistance that we all must accept Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles is baseless, it's FAR too few books.


A blessed Easter season to all...


Josiah




.

 

[NathanH83]

The canonization of Scripture by several Church councils.

Just as I said.


LOL

I said no such thing.

You made it sound like all Christians everywhere rejected them as holy scripture in the 4th century. Use your words more wisely, because that’s the impression you gave.

 

[Andrew]

That's not true. For one thing, not everything that is done in church as a matter of "tradition" has the weight of Sacred Tradition when it comes to the Roman Catholic approach to setting doctrine.

So when the majority of 1rst, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Church fathers quote lines from the so called "Apocrypha" text after using such words as "for it is written" "thus sayith the Lord" "found in our Scripture" "the Logos hath said" etc.. they ought to have been rebuked for leading astray the congregations into believing and thus receiving unholy books as being given to the church as "waters from the ever lasting fountains of the word of God" (paraphrased).

John Calvin, Martin Luther, nearly all of the reformers likewise believed that these books (the ones found in the original King James) should remain in the Holy Bible because it has always been church tradition.

 

[Albion]

So when the majority of 1rst, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Church fathers quote lines from the so called "Apocrypha" text after using such words as "for it is written" "thus sayith the Lord" "found in our Scripture" "the Logos hath said" etc.. they ought to have been rebuked for leading astray the congregations into believing and thus receiving unholy books as being given to the church as "waters from the ever lasting fountains of the word of God" (paraphrased).

Who has said anything so far about people needing to be "rebuked" for reading the Apocrypha? Well, no one.

In fact, I pointed out that a number of denominations do read selections from these books in church without considering them to be books of the Bible.

John Calvin, Martin Luther, nearly all of the reformers likewise believed that these books (the ones found in the original King James) should remain in the Holy Bible because it has always been church tradition.

That idea is in error. We've already dealt with the mistake of thinking that to say something was "included" under the same cover as the books of the Bible does not make that material be Holy Scripture. Not any more than the maps we find in some editions are considered to be divine revelation.

In addition, to value the books of the Apocrypha and to read them in church DOES NOT mean that these writings are "part of" the Bible, or inspired, or can be used to establish any doctrine.

Of course, some people simply read what they want to see or else do not correctly understand the meaning of what they're reading.

Luther and Calvin and other of the Reformers clearly did NOT consider the Apocrypha to be Holy Scripture, and, for that matter, the Roman Catholic Church also expelled a number of those books from their versions of the Bible as not being inspired.

The website of the Westminster Theological Institute expresses the facts well. I include an excerpt from it below (in the purple):

A Brief History of the Apocrypha - Westminster Theological Seminary

Jesus and the New Testament authors never directly quote the Apocrypha. Neither do they introduce it with labels that would suggest inspiration, such as “as it is written” or “as the Scripture says.” Many echoes and allusions have been detected in the New Testament, but no direct quotes or...

faculty.wts.edu

"In his preface to the Apocrypha, Luther echoed Jerome’s distinction: “These are books that, though not esteemed like the Holy Scriptures, are still both useful and good to read.”

Calvin followed suit. He interacted with the Apocrypha in ways that would make some Protestants cringe. He was edified by it and cited it in support of already accepted doctrines. However (and this is really important), neither Calvin nor Luther ever used it as an independent, infallible, inspired source of doctrine.

But the Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1546) did. Following Augustine, they ruled most of the books of the Apocrypha (excluding 1 and 2 Esdras, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, and 3 and 4 Maccabees) to be canonical."

 

[Lanman87]

John Calvin, Martin Luther, nearly all of the reformers likewise believed that these books (the ones found in the original King James) should remain in the Holy Bible because it has always been church tradition.

But did they believe the books rose to the level of Canon, being completely inspired and equal to the 66 other books? No. They believed it should be included as a appendix for devotion/historical material. Which is the same thing many early church fathers and many theologians in the middle ages believed.

 

[Andrew]

Who has said anything so far about people needing to be "rebuked" for reading the Apocrypha? Well, no one.

In fact, I pointed out that a number of denominations do read selections from these books in church without considering them to be part of the Bible.

Still wrong. They are part of the Bible and have been for centuries, who me where Luther or Calvin states anything resembling "the books called Apocrypha should not be part of the Holy Bible and should be taken out"

That idea is in error.

It is not, these books were always considered traditional scriptures for the church.
Rufinus for example broke it down for us (simplified)

Doctrinal books for witnessing (Inspired books found in the Hebrew Canon)

Ecclesiastical books not used for witneessing but for edification (Inspired books not found in the Hebrew Canon, Traditional to the church)

Apocrypha books not for church use (uninspired NT writings rejected/forbidden by the Church)

 

[Albion]

Still wrong. They are part of the Bible and have been for centuries, who me where Luther or Calvin states anything resembling "the books called Apocrypha should not be part of the Holy Bible and should be taken out"

See post #13 for yet one more explanation (with references) showing where you made your mistakes..

 

[Andrew]

A Brief History of the Apocrypha - Westminster Theological Seminary

Jesus and the New Testament authors never directly quote the Apocrypha. Neither do they introduce it with labels that would suggest inspiration, such as “as it is written” or “as the Scripture says.” Many echoes and allusions have been detected in the New Testament, but no direct quotes or...

faculty.wts.edu

"In his preface to the Apocrypha, Luther echoed Jerome’s distinction: “These are books that, though not esteemed like the Holy Scriptures, are still both useful and good to read.”

Calvin followed suit. He interacted with the Apocrypha in ways that would make some Protestants cringe. He was edified by it and cited it in support of already accepted doctrines. However (and this is really important), neither Calvin nor Luther ever used it as an independent, infallible, inspired source of doctrine.

But the Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1546) did. Following Augustine, they ruled most of the books of the Apocrypha (excluding 1 and 2 Esdras, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, and 3 and 4 Maccabees) to be canonical."

Ah yes, an article about Martin Luther, a Catholic monk who believed for most of his life the doctrine of purgatory. Had he performed proper exegesis he would have discovered that those dogmatic doctrines were entirely unfounded, surprised he didn't point out the more obvious heresy that these dogmas totally bypass The Atonement through Jesus. It shouldn't take a scholar such as himself to figure out that the church took something from a book completely out of context.
It was not his studies of these books that changed his mind, but it was a debate over purgatory that provoked him to stick his post it notes on top of those books.

I still don't see where John and Luther wanted them omitted from the Holy Bible.

 

[Andrew]

But did they believe the books rose to the level of Canon, being completely inspired and equal to the 66 other books? No. They believed it should be included as a appendix for devotion/historical material. Which is the same thing many early church fathers and many theologians in the middle ages believed.

The ante-nicene Christians did not segregate nor distinguish them apart from the rest of scripture.

Jerome got with some unbelieving Jews in the 4th century who told him that the Christians have been using the wrong books and the wrong versions... among those they rejected were the NT entirely, so why would Jerome trust what the unbeliving Rabbis had to say concerning what Christians hold true to them? Could it be that they changed the prophecies in hopes that Christians would fall away? Perhaps, most likely.

 

[Josiah]

So when the majority of 1rst, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century Church fathers quote lines from the so called "Apocrypha" text

Andrew,


1. What "Apocrypha?" List every book included in the 1611 KJV (as suggested by the Thirty Nine Articles of the unique Church of England). THIS is the unique "set" you and Nathan seem to mean by "apocrypha" But as we all know, NO Christians (other than members of the singular Church of England) share or shared that set of books - and even Anglicans don't/didn't as fully canonical or necessarily inerrant or divinely inscripturated. And Article 6 of the unique 39 Articles of the Church of England does NOT require that all those books be included in every tome with "BIBLE" on the cover.


2. HOW does the KJV include them? As WHAT? As the inerrant, fully canonical (manditory to norm and source DOGMA) divinely inscripturated words of God OR simply as useful and good to read?

John Calvin, Martin Luther, nearly all of the reformers likewise believed that these books (the ones found in the original King James) should remain in the Holy Bible because it has always been church tradition.

1. WHAT "these books?" Prove to us that Martin Luther and John Calvin believed that 1 and 2 Esdras must be regarded as the inerrant, fully canonical (for that purpose), divinely inscripturated words of God and must be included by every publishing company in any tome what has the word "BIBLE" on the cover (because they ARE in the 1611 KJV). Prove that Luther including them in his German translation. Prove that Calvinists included those in the Geneva Bible. They ARE in Article 6 of the unique 39 Articles of the individual, singular Church of England (and thus in the 1611 KJV) and thus are among the books of which you speak.

2. HOW did Luther and Calvin both regarded 1 and 2 Esdras, the Letter of Jeremiah, The Song of the Three and for Calvin the Prayer of Manasseh as inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and INCLUDED them in tomes with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. Or did they regard them only as helpful. Or did they regard them not at all? You claim they must remain in the Bible... if so, they why didn't they? And HOW in the Bible?


Your apolgetic seems to hinge largely on the point that all Christians always accepted some mysterious "them" as canonical. A point you have chosen to never support as true. And that because SOME Christians quote from a book, ergo it MUST be included in every tome sold by anyone anywhere that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover. Yet LOTS of people quote from LOTS of things! Even Jews. Even in the BIble itself. Jews quoted (or at least referenced) BY NAME many books you don't accept, for example The Book of the Wars of the Lord, The Acts of Solomon, the Acts of Uziah, the Acts of the Kings of Israel, Annals of King David, the Book of Gad, the Book of Jashar, the Book of Juduh - ALL books quoted and referenced in the OT itself by Jews). So, your point is ERGO it MUST be accepted by all Christians everywhere and in every time as THE inerrant, fully-canonical (for that use), inscripturated words of God or at least must be legally required of all publishing houses to include them in any tome it sells with "BIBLE" on the cover. If we must accept every book quoted by Jews (even in the Bible!) then the KJV should a LOT more books in it and your insistance that we all must accept Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles is baseless, it's FAR too few books.





.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew,


1. What "Apocrypha?" List every book included in the 1611 KJV (as suggested by the Thirty Nine Articles of the unique Church of England). THIS is the unique "set" you and Nathan seem to mean by "apocrypha" But as we all know, NO Christians (other than members of the singular Church of England) share or shared that set of books - and even Anglicans don't/didn't as fully canonical or necessarily inerrant or divinely inscripturated. And Article 6 of the unique 39 Articles of the Church of England does NOT require that all those books be included in every tome with "BIBLE" on the cover.


2. HOW does the KJV include them? As WHAT? As the inerrant, fully canonical (manditory to norm and source DOGMA) divinely inscripturated words of God OR simply as useful and good to read?





1. WHAT "these books?" Prove to us that Martin Luther and John Calvin believed that 1 and 2 Esdras must be regarded as the inerrant, fully canonical (for that purpose), divinely inscripturated words of God and must be included by every publishing company in any tome what has the word "BIBLE" on the cover (because they ARE in the 1611 KJV). Prove that Luther including them in his German translation. Prove that Calvinists included those in the Geneva Bible. They ARE in Article 6 of the unique 39 Articles of the individual, singular Church of England (and thus in the 1611 KJV) and thus are among the books of which you speak.

2. HOW did Luther and Calvin both regarded 1 and 2 Esdras, the Letter of Jeremiah, The Song of the Three and for Calvin the Prayer of Manasseh as inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and INCLUDED them in tomes with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. Or did they regard them only as helpful. Or did they regard them not at all? You claim they must remain in the Bible... if so, they why didn't they? And HOW in the Bible?


Your apolgetic seems to hinge largely on the point that all Christians always accepted some mysterious "them" as canonical. A point you have chosen to never support as true. And that because SOME Christians quote from a book, ergo it MUST be included in every tome sold by anyone anywhere that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover. Yet LOTS of people quote from LOTS of things! Even Jews. Even in the BIble itself. Jews quoted (or at least referenced) BY NAME many books you don't accept, for example The Book of the Wars of the Lord, The Acts of Solomon, the Acts of Uziah, the Acts of the Kings of Israel, Annals of King David, the Book of Gad, the Book of Jashar, the Book of Juduh - ALL books quoted and referenced in the OT itself by Jews). So, your point is ERGO it MUST be accepted by all Christians everywhere and in every time as THE inerrant, fully-canonical (for that use), inscripturated words of God or at least must be legally required of all publishing houses to include them in any tome it sells with "BIBLE" on the cover. If we must accept every book quoted by Jews (even in the Bible!) then the KJV should a LOT more books in it and your insistance that we all must accept Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles is baseless, it's FAR too few books.





.

You have asked that question abut a thousand times before.

It's very simple.

The books labeled by Jerome as "Apocrypha"
The same books that were included in the original KJV 1611 that are no longer included.
The books that the Catholics call "deuterocanonical" because that's exactly what they are, a complimentary 2nd canon list used for edification, something all churches could benefit from.
"They" include important lessons of moral obedience such as good will toward all men, charity and thanksgivings rather than pressing on the legal issues of Judaism and tribalism.