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

[Albion]

God made scripture available for the gentile nations and that's what the early Christians used, if the apostles wanted us to use Hebrew I'm sure they would have discerned it's canon list but there wasn't anyway.

More guesswork. Plus you must surely know that not everything religious that some Jews wrote before the coming of Christ is automatically to be considered by Christians to be divinely inspired!

And now the fact of the unsettled nature of the Apocrypha being what the fourth-century Christian councils had to deal with is not rejected in your post but just ignored (?)

 

[Albion]

Here, in this thread, folk ought to have a tradition of some kind to fall back on.
And if their faith is tightly tied to their tradition maybe movement on the matter ought not to be expected.

I agree that such a POV has merit.

Arguing the facts when one (or more) of the participants is guided instead by his "druthers," it's not likely that he'll change his mind. And in this particular discussion, where the evidence has been presented several times, just ending the thread would make sense.

 

[Lanman87]

Catholic and Orthodox both use these books in their lectionary, both print them in their bibles, and many manuscripts from ancient times include them.

I was speaking to the point that early Protestant Bibles also contained the books in question. Not as to what Catholics and Orthodox have in their Bibles.

Early Protestants followed what many Catholics in the middle ages believed. That these books are profitable for devotion/history but do not rise to the level of "God Breathed Scripture". It is my understanding that these books were included in Appendices of the Protestant Bibles with instructions that they are to be used for devotion but are not part of the Canon of Scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was speaking to the point that early Protestant Bibles also contained the books in question.

16th Century Protestants used Catholic Latin Bibles and later made some translations for themselves. That is why their translations had the 73 canonical books in them - arranged to suit Protestant tastes, of course.

 

[Josiah]

I was speaking to the point that early Protestant Bibles also contained the books in question. Not as to what Catholics and Orthodox have in their Bibles.

Early Protestants followed what many Catholics in the middle ages believed. That these books are profitable for devotion/history but do not rise to the level of "God Breathed Scripture". It is my understanding that these books were included in Appendices of the Protestant Bibles with instructions that they are to be used for devotion but are not part of the Canon of Scripture.

Essentially correct.

But a couple of "fine points."

While Luther included 8 books in his section of Deutercanonical books (and yes, with the instructions you note!), he did so simply because those 8 other books were commonly used in Germany at the time so it was convenient to supply a translation. His content was never however officially recognized by Lutherans. Technically, Lutherans have no position on any of the Deuterocanonical books (however many are so considered - and no one seems to agree on that) although informally, Lutherans widely embrace Luther's own personal opinion on the matter.

The Church of England (and with it, the Anglican Communion) included several MORE books than Luther and with the status and use exactly as you note, and officially and formally declared what is normative (canonical), and what is only helpful to read. The Church of England essential formalized the distinction that Luther made and many others before him... and for a larger corpus of books.

While Calvin himself - personally - is a little hard to pin down on this, it seems his view was the same as Luther's. However, as in many things in the Reformed movement, those after Calvin evolved the position. The Westminister Confession ONLY mentions the 66 and says nothing of any Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha books - yeah or nay, as canonical or simply useful - it just doesn't mention them, only the 66. Many Reformed bibles contained extra books (most often the Anglican set, larger than Luther's or the Catholic ones) but those were soon dropped - simply by custom.


The steadfast, persisted claims of two of our friends in this site about Christianity declaring some "set" of books beyond the 66 is simply baseless. And their claim that some mysterious person then "ripped them out" is also baseless. As is the reasons they give for why Christianity put "them" in and then some mysterious person ripped 'them' out. These (however many, whichever we might speak of) were USED at times by some Christians (along with many other things) but there was no PUTTING IN. Their number and status was always questioned, they were typically not used canonically but for information and inspiration (as we might use many books today). The position of Luther and of the Church of England (and possibly of Calvin) was very traditional. In a sense, The Catholic Church is the one who officially (kind of) changed that - either in the 15th or 16th century - and that simply by implication. Both meetings of that denomination listed the books "accepted" and the way Trent and Florence were interpreted was that all listed were EQUAL in every way and use, although neither Council actually stated that.



I've shared my opinion earlier (this topic is endless!)... I'm just not sure it makes a whole lot of difference. WHATEVER books one wants to consider (and no one seems to agree there), they are all VERY EASILY available, in all languages, for free - fully and completely accessible. No one forbids reading or publishing them (whichever "them"). There is a pretty solid custom that they are DEUTEROcanonical (at best) and not canonical - not to be used canonically, to source and norm Dogma (and some add practice). They are informational, inspirational and helpful - but not canonical. In my years as a Catholic, NOT ONCE was anything in them ever preached on or taught or even referenced ... for anything... although rarely a reading from them came up in the Lectionary (as it does in some Lutheran lectionaries, too). It wasn't until I left the RCC and became a Lutheran did I experience a detailed Study of them at church. The RCC and EOC have NEVER, EVER agreed on them but it's never been an issue - at all - because they aren't canonical, just informational and devotional in nature. IMO, there are MANY books that aren't canonical but are helpful! Does some Ruling Body of all Christianity have to officially declare WHAT additional books are good to read? Do all Christians have to agree on EXACTLY which ones are? Probably not.





.

 

[Andrew]

16th Century Protestants used Catholic Latin Bibles and later made some translations for themselves. That is why their translations had the 73 canonical books in them - arranged to suit Protestant tastes, of course.

Modern protestants would still have the 73 canonical books in their bibles if the anti-Catholic American Bible Society hadn't made the decision to omit the "Apocrypha" section to save a few bucks -which was a farce, sure it might have saved a few measly bucks but according to the ABS themselves, they were afraid of American Protestants "backsliding into Catholicism".
The Papacy literally had to ask and get approved and pay a donation for thw ABS to order the printing press to print a number of Catholic bibles at a time for Catholic churches, at the time the common Catholic could not purchase a Catholic bible independently. This practice eventually ended but I have yet to see a Catholic Bible on the book shelves at walmart.
Why Wisdom Chapter 2 is never brought up in protestant and pentecostal churchs is suppression of edification, Tobit makes for a fine sermon as well, but of course "Almsgiving" is wOrKs so obviously it's a 'Catholic Book'.
Can't understand a good bulk of Daniels prophecy without 1 Maccabees, so protestants have to point to secular history or gather that it must not have been fulfilled.
Not saying that Protestants need to canonize these books but they were part of the Christian Holy Bible for a reason, keep it in the apendix or forever be ignored for being taboo literature, not to be explored.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Modern protestants would still have the 73 canonical books in their bibles if the anti-Catholic American Bible Society hadn't made the decision to omit the "Apocrypha" section to save a few bucks -which was a farce, sure it might have saved a few measly bucks but according to the ABS themselves, they were afraid of American Protestants "backsliding into Catholicism".
The Papacy literally had to ask and get approved and pay a donation for thw ABS to order the printing press to print a number of Catholic bibles at a time for Catholic churches, at the time the common Catholic could not purchase a Catholic bible independently. This practice eventually ended but I have yet to see a Catholic Bible on the book shelves at walmart.
Why Wisdom Chapter 2 is never brought up in protestant and pentecostal churchs is suppression of edification, Tobit makes for a fine sermon as well, but of course "Almsgiving" is wOrKs so obviously it's a 'Catholic Book'.
Can't understand a good bulk of Daniels prophecy without 1 Maccabees, so protestants have to point to secular history or gather that it must not have been fulfilled.
Not saying that Protestants need to canonize these books but they were part of the Christian Holy Bible for a reason, keep it in the apendix or forever be ignored for being taboo literature, not to be explored.

I do not believe that Protestants would call the deuterocanon 'canonical'; Martin Luther didn't. But your point about printing and printing costs is, as far as I know, correct.

 

[Josiah]

I do not believe that Protestants would call the deuterocanon 'canonical'; Martin Luther didn't. But your point about printing and printing costs is, as far as I know, correct.

It MAY be that the American Bible Society was "anti-Catholic" 200 years ago (Americans generally were, I very sadly agree). But Andrew tells us they began to publish a version with just the 66 "to save paper" and "to save money" (perhaps... and maybe just because customers didn't use those books and thus didn't want to pay for them).

Now, I'm lost as to how that proves ...

+ that 1600 years ago, some Ruling Body of All Christianity officially and formally declared the exact list of books as is listed in Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, and that ALL Christians used THAT Bible until the 16th Century - Coptics, Latin Catholics, Greek Orthodox, yup, they all had the exact same books in them, no more, no less, the idential same material. One tome. Everywhere. By all.

+ That that meeting of that Ruling Body of All Christianity specifically stated that ALL those 78 books are EQUAL in every way and use.

+ Some (never identified) person "RIPPED OUT" all but 66 of those books from the the identical tomes that all Christians have (well, eventualy some Calvinists since Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox and other Calvinists STILL had some books beyond the 66 in them), with the goal of keeping these Evangelicals from understanding the Bible.

+ That if some Jews and/or some Christians use a book, ergo it is canonical and must legally appear in every tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover, even if it's not listed in that all important Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, cuz it was USED by someone for something. And related, if it was originally written in Hebrew, it's canonical (but not necessarily if in Greek).


Here's what I suspect.....

Occasionally, some "Evangelical" type Protestant has an epiphany..... While their pastor never mentioned it (perhaps because they are ignorant or anti-Lutheran, anti-Anglican, anti-Orthodox, anti-Catholic) there are OTHER books (beyond the 66 in their Good News Bible they were given by their Baptist Sunday School teacher) that - for a very long time - most Christians read. Even in the lectionary. And used. And quoted. And found very helpful. Books that Luther and the Church of England even put right in tomes along with the 66. And they read some of this and WOW! AMAZING! There's some good stuff here!!!! Now, the question they SHOULD ask is, "Did my Evangelical pastor purposely hide these from me?" If so, maybe they should consider changing churches. But all the weird, baseless conspiracy theories ... all the WRONG history.... all the claims that they are kept from having access to these.... all the entirely baseless claims made here at CH in thread after thread, post after post, for years now.... THAT'S what is wrong and the persistence in not considering anything noted is unfortunate.




.

 

[Andrew]

I do not believe that Protestants would call the deuterocanon 'canonical'; Martin Luther didn't. But your point about printing and printing costs is, as far as I know, correct.

You're right, I meant the canonical and deuterocanonical respectfully

 

[MoreCoffee]

You're right, I meant the canonical and deuterocanonical respectfully

Maybe people get confused about what was in a printed bible and their specific theory of the "canon" of scripture?

 

[Andrew]

Maybe people get confused about what was in a printed bible and their specific theory of the "canon" of scripture?

Why would they be confused? The Apocrypha section was not only for Catholics, the ante-nicene Church Fathers quoted from them more than they did the other books of the Old Testament.. as Luther said, let the pious reader discern their authenticity of divine inspiration. He never wanted them out of the Bible.

I suppose an authentic Holy Bible wouldn't have numbered chapters, passages and verses and it would be printed in Hebrew.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why would they be confused?

In here, in this thread? It looks like the confusion could be a rhetorical device used for the purposes of debate. Like we see in debates of all kinds.

 

[NathanH83]

I do not believe that Protestants would call the deuterocanon 'canonical'; Martin Luther didn't. But your point about printing and printing costs is, as far as I know, correct.

Anabaptists were some of the Protestant Reformers, and they accepted the Apocryphal books. Martin Luther said that 1 Maccabees is worthy to be placed among holy scripture.

 

[NathanH83]

"Insinuated." Hum. YOU seem to believe that if YOU feel something isn't said, therefore it's a fact - right there for all to see. I wonder if you know the meaning of "insinuated?"




"I've" "Impression." Hum. How far can someone distance themselves from reality?






Hum. Here you are beyond "insinuated" and "feeling" and into pure, baseless guessing.

I wonder if you know the meaning of "says?"

Perhaps you'll get further if you pay more attention to what IS rather than what is NOT (except in your imagination)?






That's because there's ZERO evidence that the author is talking about some books known to us by the monikers of First, Second, Third and Fourth Maccabees. He probably IS talking about an EVENT that one f those books also talks about (although that's not certain), but that's an EVENT, not a BOOK. Duh.

And even if the author said, "A book that will be known to some by the moniker of First Maccabees says...." that would be entirely, completely unrelated to that book therefore being in a tome everyone had with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. After all, the Bible itself - specifically and by name - mentions SEVERAL books that NO ONE has in their biblical tome and NO ONE considers to be canonical. But of course, Hebrews doesn't mention any book by any name - as canonical or not. He MAY be alluding to an EVENT, but never mentions a book. And just because a book mentions true things doesn't mean it's thus in the Bible. I have a book that talks about World War II but it's not in anyone's bible tome.

Think.






What church?

Is it the responsibility of every one of the MILLIONS of parishes in the world to tell you EVERYTHING? What makes you certain YOUR individual, singular church KEPT ignorant about the event the author might be referring to?

Did you specifically ASK your pastor if the author of Hebrews was insinuating that some book unknown to you was in his tome that had "BIBLE" on the cover? Did you ask him/her if Hebrews was referring to some EVENT or to some BOOK?

If YOU FEEL your individual church purposely keeps you ignorant, perhaps you need to attend a different church.







Again, what makes you certain some mysterious "they" purposely kept you ignorant about the event the author of Hebrews might be referring to?

Why aren't you posting all these constant rants to those "THEY" instead of to "the church?" Seems to me your "problem" is not with the church or Christianity or Christians but some unidentified "they" that you (for some mysterious reason) FEEL kept you ignorant about some event that Hebrews might be referring to.... or perhaps because If YOU FEEL this mysterious "they" purposely kept you ignorant about books and materials that might be helpful in understanding history. Take that up with those "THEY" (whoever they are).


I looked it up in my tome. Hebrews 11:35. Right there in the notes... not hidden from me.... not purposely kept from me... right there in black and white it says "This may be referring to an event recorded in 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42 where Eleazar, his six brothers and his mother refuse to partake in pagan sacrifices." Now, it doesn't say "And this proves that the author of Hebrews was reading a book entitled "THE BIBLE" and 2 Maccabees was in that tome and thus was declared by Judaism to be canonical and so must also we must accept it and have it in our tomes today (as it is in Luther's translation)." Nope, doesn't state that. But it's NOT purposely keeping everyone ignorant as to the reality that he MAY be referring to an event and we can read about that in 2 Maccabees. My church does not purposely keep people ignorant as you feel yours does. Maybe you need to leave your church.




.

You have a very disrespectful and mocking attitude. That’s not Christ-like. You need to repent.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Anabaptists were some of the Protestant Reformers, and they accepted the Apocryphal books. Martin Luther said that 1 Maccabees is worthy to be placed among holy scripture.

I believe that you are correct. I think that nowadays Mennonites, for example, use a 66 book bible.

 

[Josiah]

Martin Luther said that 1 Maccabees is worthy to be placed among holy scripture.

PLACED AMONG. As he did.

But he did NOT consider it (or any other of the DEUTEROcanonical books) were EQUAL to the 66 - equal in any sense whatsoever. Nor did he state that 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees HAS to be placed among the rest - only that it is worthy to be. In my Lutheran Bible, the Lutheran Small Catechism is placed among the Scriptures as good to read, but it is in no sense considered equal to the 66 and is not required to share the covers of a tome with canonical books.

.

 

[Andrew]

PLACED AMONG. As he did.

But he did NOT consider it (or any other of the DEUTEROcanonical books) were EQUAL to the 66 - equal in any sense whatsoever. Nor did he state that 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 Maccabees HAS to be placed among the rest - only that it is worthy to be. In my Lutheran Bible, the Lutheran Small Catechism is placed among the Scriptures as good to read, but it is in no sense considered equal to the 66 and is not required to share the covers of a tome with canonical books.

.

He also stated that Tobit COULD be Holy Inspired Scripture or it COULD be just a good story that teaches godly morals.

I believe he meant what he said when he suggested that the books in question should be entirely up to the pious reader.

Josiah, the post 18th century protestants have a very disconnected view of the importance of these books in historical Biblical tradition, Luther wanted to keep them in the Bible, Luther encouraged that they should be read by all Christians, Luther never said the books were not important enough to be in the Bible, Luther WOULD agree with you on the official OT canon list (the Jewish canon according to Jerome's encounter with a non Messianic Rabbi).. Luther would NOT agree with you that these books should be removed from any Bible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Luther would NOT agree

For a religious Lutheran that would matter. For me it doesn't.

 

[Josiah]

. Luther would NOT agree with you that these books should be removed from any Bible.

Quote me where I said that all the books mentioned in Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of English should be removed from any tome with the word BIBLE on the cover.

My Bible (in a set of two) has about 2800 pages and perhaps 300 separate things in it. Those 66 books are a fairly small percentage of that. So how can I insist that tomes labeled "BIBLE" only contain 66 books - nothing less, nothing more, nothing other?



.

 

[Lanman87]

Luther would NOT agree with you that these books should be removed from any Bible.

Is your beef that they were removed from American Evangelical Bibles or that Protestant/Evangelicals don't consider the said books to be part of the Canon of Scripture? So that even if they don't consider them to be part of the Canon they should have left them in the printed Bible in the same way the Early Reformers did, (and also the Catholics who held the same position prior to Trent).