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

[MoreCoffee]

I understand that, But to say that Protestants removed those books from the "Canon" of Holy Scriptures or that Catholics added those books to the Canon are both not the entire story.

No officially defined canon for the holy scriptures existed until the church defined one.

But an informal canon existed in the manuscripts' contents. The Churches commissioned people to create such manuscripts or wealthy patrons did so and in either case, this informal canon which was derived from the manuscripts contained all 73 of the books defined as canonical by the Catholic Church.

Protestants have created a different canon that is unlike the contents of the manuscripts. Protestants amalgamated the contents of Jewish Tanach scrolls/books with the new testament from Christian manuscripts. Protestants did that sometime in the early sixteenth century.

 

[Andrew]

Yes. USED. He didn't support any of your Jewish Conspiracy claims, he didn't support all your "Christianity put in" claims and "Protestants ripped out" claims, he didn't support your God gave gentiles the LXX claims, he didn't support the "everyone had the same Bible until the American Bible Society changed that" claims. Luther USED lots of things, indeed in his writings he OFTEN used LOTS of material from the Early Church Fathers... but USING is not the same as declaring that such has just gotta therefore be inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and there just hasta be a grand international law mandating that such must be included in any tome with the word "BIBLE" found on the cover or else.


There is no law, no denominational mandate, nothing that says you can't USE "them" - or anything else for that matter.

There is no law, no denominational mandate, nothing that mandates or forbids what publishing houses may or may not put in or not put in any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover.

No singular person, publishing house, society or denomination is the Ruling Body of all Christianity on what is and is not to be allowed to appear or forbidden to appear in Christian Bibles.

NO ONE and NOTHING kept you or Nathan from reading or using ANYTHING. There reality that you may have read and used "them" disproves your point. You CAN read and use them - because you have.

If your minister in your parish wants you to be ignorant of things so that you won't understand a verse in the Book of Hebrews and so told you not to read something, then your anger is at THAT MINISTER. And your taking his/her advice. THAT'S the reason you were late to the party. Your "beef" is not with Christianity or Protestantism.... not with something the American Bible Society (one singular Bible society) did some TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO that cannot and does not impact you.... not with the Jews or Luther. It's with this unnamed person who wanted you to be ignorant.



Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141





.

No, he USED them for DOCTRINE in his Resolutions to his 95 theses, He even makes it a point to state to the reader that he will only be using the Traditional Books of Canon as recognized by the Church for his resolution.

Rufinus, Augustin, Epiphanius, Athanasius
lists the books of the Holy Scripture (Tradition passed down from the Apostles)
in two categories

Holy Canonical Scripture - Used to establish Doctrine

Holy Ecclesiastical Scripture - Used as testimony and confirmation of Doctrine

Any writings they do NOT lists are to be called APOCRYPHA - Spurious heretical writings banned from the Church

 

[Josiah]

I understand that, But to say that Protestants removed those books from the "Canon" of Holy Scriptures or that Catholics added those books to the Canon are both not the entire story.

Throughout church history there were two threads (as the New Catholic Encyclopedia put it) concerning those books. Two rival "traditions" if you will. During all the dust up during the reformation the Catholic church affirmed one tradition and the Protestants affirmed the other tradition.

I'm just as quick to tell protestants that Catholics didn't add "those books" to the Bible as I am to tell Catholics that Protestants didn't remove "those books" from the Bible.

And it is not even as simple as that. Some prominent Theologians in the Middles ages accepts some of the Deutero books as part of the Canon and rejected others.

Even perhaps the greatest Pope in History, Gregory the Great, said that 1 Maccabees is not part of the Canon in his commentaries on the Book of Morals exposition on the Book of Job (which he published after becoming Pope). Book 19, Chapter 34

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed [1 Macc. 6, 46]…

Pope Gregory the Great gives the early Reformers view of 1 Maccabees. It is not Canonical, but at the same time is for edifying the church. Obviously, we don't know his view on the other disputed books. But it does show that the Catholic church didn't always hold 1 Macc as being a Canonical work.

Well stated....


1. YES! The new claims of some Roman Catholics and modern American "Evangelicals" about the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books are both equally wrong and unhistorical.


2. There NEVER has been any ruling, authoritative, ecumenical "decision"here. NEVER. No "PUT IN" No "RIP OUT." What is considered fully canonical (to be used to source and norm dogma and some add practice) is a matter of TRADITION, not some RULING. And it's not a universal or perfect one. It's pretty good around 66 books (as now counted) not always embracing those 66 equally - some were held MORE canonical than others. But yes, there were others (both OT and NT) that were read, used, quoted - often a LOT - that were more controversal and often NOT considered fully canonical (although perhaps DEUTEROcanonical - secondary, under the canonical - able to used to support a dogma but not source or norm it). It's surprising to many NOW, but all this was a bit "loosy goosy" until the Reformation.


3. You are correct, there were various "schools" on this. Both in terms of what IS and IS NOT apocrypha or deuterocanonical (never has been agreement on that - which is why our two friends try HARD to not say that books they include and don't in this). AND in terms of their status: secondarily canonical but not fully so, or ONLY useful for information and inspiration (along with LOTS of other things - Didache, writings of the Fathers, etc. etc, etc.). BOTH schools or traditions existed. No firm tradition on WHICH books.... no firm tradition on their status and use.


4. A FEW denominations have made some ruling as to what IT (alone) considers to be fully CANONICAL (to be used to source and norm dogma) and often inerrant and divinely inspired. The RCC did that unofficially in the 15th Century and officially in the 16th. The Church of England and the Reformed movement did so also in the 16th Century. The LDS did so in the 19th Century. But in every such case, this was a DENOMINATIONAL action, impacting ONLY that one singular denomination. Nothing ecumenical. And yes, it was never a case of "RIPPING OUT" or "PUTTING IN" but simply formalizing and institutionalizing a spin on one or another tradition.... a push back on the rather loose tradition that existed before that. Again, ONLY for the one singular individual denomination that did it, for itself.


5. AFTER the Reformation, there has been a growing tradition in both Catholicism and Protestantism to regard all canonical books EQUALLY (more or less - often the OT is under or secondary to the NT). This was not the case during the Reformation. And this trend seems to intensify the desire to "pin down" exactly WHAT books we're talking about. Protestants have tended to land with "the 66" with the very ancient, solid embrace, Catholics around the decision it made at its meeting at Trent in the mid-16th Century. The claims about "Christianity" or "all Christians" or "the church" are all baseless..... a handful of DENOMINATIONS have (rather recently) but that's a whole other enchilada. Again, this is quite new... and very denominational, not definitive or ecumenical.


6. Our two friends rants about "PUT IN" and "RIPPED OUT".... Jewish Conspiracies... all Bibles used to be the same.... laws governing what may or may not be in books with BIBLE written on the cover.... prohibitions on Protestants to read some things so that they remain ignorant and unable to understand the NT... God inspired the LXX and THAT is the Bible for gentiles.... all this is simply baseless. Their own individual pastors may be "anti-Catholic" as they claim and perhaps did forbid them to read anything other than the 66 - but obviously this had no effect on them because they both claim they HAVE read and used them, so obviously this supposed prohibition didn't work. If anyone wants to read Tobit or the Didache or 4 Maccabees or Psalm 151 or First Clement - THEY MAY. There is no law forbidding that. And if a publishing house wants to sell tomes with the Prayer of Manassah in it, THEY MAY. There is no law forbidding that.






.

 

[Josiah]

No, he USED them for DOCTRINE in his Resolutions to his 95 theses, He even makes it a point to state to the reader that he will only be using the Traditional Books of Canon as recognized by the Church for his resolution.

Again, nothing offered to support this. Even though this is when he is still Catholic, I'd love to see where he - by name - quotes from some book he specifically states is NOT to be used canonically - but does so. Not as deuterocanonical (which he permits) but as CANONICAL.

Any writings they do NOT lists are to be called APOCRYPHA - Spurious heretical writings banned from the Church

Then your "beef" is not with anyone here but with that Church of England's 39 Articles and the 1611 King James Version - both of which specially call it's own unique embrace of "them" as APOCRYPHA. That's the word used. The word does NOT apply to the Gospel of Thomas or even Revelation of Peter but to books you now claim cannot be referred to as they are in the 1611 KJV which is the tome you keep insisting is the only one that;s got this right.


Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163




.

 

[Albion]

Then your "beef" is not with anyone here but with that Church of England's 39 Articles and the 1611 King James Version - both of which specially call it's own unique embrace of "them" as APOCRYPHA. That's the word used.

What's more, those books are identified by name in the Article that deals with this matter--Article VI. There is no uncertainty about which books are being referred to or, for that matter, what their standing with the church actually is (valuable to read for example of life and instruction of manners, but not to be used to establish any doctrine).

 

[Andrew]

Again, nothing offered to support this. Even though this is when he is still Catholic, I'd love to see where he - by name - quotes from some book he specifically states is NOT to be used canonically - but does so. Not as deuterocanonical (which he permits) but as CANONICAL.





Then your "beef" is not with anyone here but with that Church of England's 39 Articles and the 1611 King James Version - both of which specially call it's own unique embrace of "them" as APOCRYPHA. That's the word used. The word does NOT apply to the Gospel of Thomas or even Revelation of Peter but to books you now claim cannot be referred to as they are in the 1611 KJV which is the tome you keep insisting is the only one that;s got this right.


Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163




.

They used that word because Jerome was ignorant and Rufinus pointed out his ignorance.

Hence why I say "so called Apocrypha"

 

[Andrew]

Gary Machuta has a video that explains it better than I can, I went through just one of Luthers 'billions' of writings and noticed them, but in the video he points out where Luther states that he is using only the canon..
@Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Gary Machuta has a video that explains it better than I can, I went through just one of Luthers 'billions' of writings and noticed them, but in the video he points out where Luther states that he is using only the canon..
@Josiah

Martin Luther is important for Protestants mainly because his theology has some of the main points that Protestantism still holds to as fundamental to their message.

For Catholics and Orthodox, Martin Luther is Important mainly for the Protestant political and religious revolt that he helped to precipitate.

Martin Luther's canon for the old testament is relevant for Protestants but irrelevant for Catholics and Orthodox.

What the Church of England has in the 39 articles of religion cannot decide any question of the canon unless one happens to be a member of that church or its overseas offspring.

Article VI of the 39 articles of the Church of England says:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

 

[Josiah]

Response to post 167

5:00 He gives his own translation and indicates that Luther made a "flip flop" on the status of what he called "DEUTEROcanonical" ( the word means SECONDARY canon, UNDER the canon, not to be used canonically). Trouble is... even without context, even if his translation is right, where is the "flip flop?" Where does Luther state that any DEUTEROcanonical book is in fact fully canonical, that it IS inerrant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God that MAY be used to source and norm doctrine? Now, it could be he's indicating it has "weight" (again, the meaning of DEUTEROcanonical - it can be used to SUPPORT dogma but not source or norm it). Question: where's the "flip flop" even from his Catholic years? Where is the quote where he states, "2 Maccabees is fully canonical and CAN be used to source and norm dogma?"

6:00 Where does Luther state, "The DUETEROcanonical books ARE a part of the canonical (source and norm for dogma) OT? He CLAIMS Luther said this - but it's entirely unsubstantiated. Yes, Luther's view here is higher than perhaps your typical Assembly of God preacher's but that doesn't mean it made some flip-flop: once (perhaps as a Catholic) he held the post-Trent list of books as fully canonical, equally so to say the Book of Romans, to be used to source and norm dogma... then says, nope, these are not books that can be used that way. Where is the supposed flip flop?

13:00 He references a very early work, arguably when Luther is still quite Catholic (not the 95 Theses as claimed above). Yes, he says he will be quoting from Scripture and OTHER MATERIAL. Yes, he quotes from Psalms and from Wisdom. But it is a leap to argue - even at this very early date - that he EQUATES the two, he is simply REFERENCING and QUOTING from the two. Luther OFTEN quotes from Scripture and from some Ecumenical Council and some Church Father and some Church Canon - all right next to each other. But it is absurd to argue that ERGO he considers all of them to be EQUAL in status, all inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated Scriptures. Remember too: Luther ACCEPTS their DEUTERO status, they can be used to SUPPORT a point firmly made elsewhere (in canonical Scripture) but not as the souce or as the norm of such. Here Luther is doing EXACTLY that. He is NOT saying, "Wisdom is fully canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscripturated words of God equal to the Book of Psalms." No flip flop. Even at the very early stage when we'd expect much in line with Catholicism. Note that "from the Scripture" is not something Luther said.

15:00 Again, exact same problem. He never said Sirach is canonical. He said he'd be using OTHER things, too - not just Scripture. He is quoting Sirach IN SUPPORT of something several quoted SCRIPTURES state, he is not sourcing or norming something on this quote, he's using it to source or norm something; he's using it DEUTEROcanonically. Nothing here about Sirach being canonical... nothing about it being equal to anything. Nothing about how this book MUST be in every tome sold with BIBLE on the cover. May we use it to help understand points? Absolutely! As may quotes from ECF, from Ecumenical Councils, from Creeds, from Church Canon (declarations) but he's not sourcing or norming anything on this verse from Sirach. There's no "flip flop" even at the very early time. No "It's canonical! It's NOT canonical!" By this man's apologetic, Luther obviously held to his death that the ECF's writings are fully canonical, the Creeds are, the Councils are, the RCC Canons are - because he quotes them A LOT, often right along quotes from Scripture. As he stated, he uses OTHER things to understand positions. But it's absurd to argue he's SOURCING and NORMING by these. He's USING them - not embracing them as fully canonical.

19:00 Here he does exactly that. Luther is quoting from Scripture ("Firstly") then quoting two Fathers. This man's whole apologetic is that if Luther quotes things (without obvious distinction) then he regards them EQUALLY and as fully canonical, inerrant, divinely inspired words of God that (by itself) can source and norm dogma. So, by his logic, Luther holds everything Jerome and Augustine said as Scripture - equal to what he said as "firstly." Pretty absurd, huh? No. Luther is doing what he said he would: He's using Scripture AND OTHER THINGS that help us understand that. NOTHING here that says St. Augustine's words are canonical - to be used equally with Scripture to source and norm. Nope, Augustine is simply saying things that make the same point as Scripture and helping us perhaps to understand such. This section of the video blows his whole apologetic out of the water. If his use of Sirach means ERGO Sirach is fully canonical, then obviously Luther holds the writings of the ECF's to be too. And I'll add all the Ecumenical Councils (because he quotes them then a lot), the Creeds, the RCC Canons, etc.

19:15. He's not quoting Augustine AS CANON - as source and norm for dogma. Augustine's point here seems to be quite the opposite. Again, like every Christian teacher known to me, Luther quotes LOTS of stuff, uses LOTS of stuff - as he said he would do in the introduction! NOT just Scripture. If your preach has a text.. but in the sermon puts up a video from MASH, does that prove he ergo considers American TV to be fully canonical, inerrant, divine inspired? Or simply that the MASH video helps make the point? Does it mean that Hollywood is the Canon (and it so happens his biblical text is similar)? Come on.... But again, he's NOT saying Augustine's words are canonical, he's saying we should regard use Scripture for that.

20:49. What is missing is Luther saying that Tobit is canonical. He USES it (as he teaches is good to do) but where does it show he is BASING, sourcing, norming Dogma by THAT book? It doesn't. This apologetist (whoever he is) is making some pretty big leaps. And even I (no expert on Luther) have read enough of his works to know he QUOTES and USES lots and lots of stuff (as does every Christian teacher known to me) - as he says he will do in this work - Scripture, Councils, Creeds, Fathers, Church Canon, etc. All to help understand things. BUT he says, the only thing he'll use to SOURCE and NORM (use as canon) is Scripture (and he quotes Augustine as teaching the same rubric). Where this man is WAY off base is insisting if other things are brought into the discussion, ERGO Luther must regard them as fully canonical, inerrant, inspired Scripture. How absurd. Has he never read any theology books, never heard any sermons? Obviously, he hasn't read much of Luther's stuff.


Well, I don't have time for this. All this is from VERY early in Luther... nothing that says any of these books or Fathers or Councils are fully canonical, normative.... only that they may used to help make a point. He doesn't prove that Luther regarded books beyond the 66 as fully canonical (at best, DEUTEROcanonical) and ECF's and Creeds and Councils and RCC Canon (all of which he OFTEN quotes along with Scripture without distinction) thus are all fully canonical and can be used as the source and norm for dogma - then later said, NOPE, can't do that. No flip flop. Even this very, very early point.

Again, when your preacher uses some quote from some book or TV show or movie or song.... without saying "Now, this is NOT fully canonical, inerrant, verbally inspired words of God to be used to source and norm dogma but just helps make the point and understand it" does that mean ERGO your preacher holds that the quote IS canonical? Come on. His whole premise is just baseless. To be a flip flop, he needs to quote Luther saying "This writing IS fully canonical, inerrant, inscripturated words of God that can be used to source and norm dogma (not just support or better understand it)" THEN writing ""This writing is NOT fully canonical, inerrant, inscripturated words of God that can be used to source and norm dogma (not just support or better understand it)" And he does nothing remotely like that.




Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

"DEUTEROcanonical" ( the word means SECONDARY canon, UNDER the canon, not to be used canonically)

Deuterocanonical means "of the second canon" - Miriam Webster's dictionary gives "Definition of deuterocanonical: of, relating to, or constituting the books of Scripture contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew canon".

The definition from Josiah is not a received standard definition.

The word is a modern invention. First recorded in use in 1684, well after Martin Luther was dead (+ 1546). Also well after the Council of Trent was concluded (1545 to 1563).

 

[Josiah]

What the Church of England has in the 39 articles of religion cannot decide any question of the canon unless one happens to be a member of that church or its overseas offspring.

The same is true for the meetings of the RCC at Florence in the 15th Century and Trent in the 16th. Establishing the UNIQUE collection of that one denomination (to which no other has or ever has agreed). I agree, there was an informal (and fairly loose) TRADITION within that single church body - the Latin, Western church - which those meetings largely embraced. But it is a tradition and finally decision of only that one church.

And it seems your church has never officially declared that that unique "set" of exactly 73 are EQUAL in every sense, all canonical (meaning, to be used as the canon - the source and norm for dogma) although that is a very common view in the Catholic Church today.

Now, I don't think that reality proves the claims made here: That Christianity declared the EXACT SET of books listed in Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles to be the canonical, inerrant, divinely inscripturated words of God - no more, no less - and that every Bible found in Christianity from the Coptic Church to the Lutheran one have always been exactly the same (no other books, all those books) until one individual Bible Society in the USA "ripped out" some. I think we have TRADITIONS .... not fully universal, not perfect.... nor so firmly or universally or authoritatively pinned down. Although some churches (like yours) did so EVENTUALLY ... and only for it itself alone.

Martin Luther's canon for the old testament is relevant for Protestants but irrelevant for Catholics and Orthodox.

I think DIFFERENT issues conveniently get confused. Perhaps not always on purpose. Luther did not inherit ONE BIBLE that every Christian on the planet accepted exactly the same: Same exact books, same exact use. As noted above by several posters, there were various traditions, side by side. I don't think it's entirely possible to know Luther's view while he was Catholic... He was a German and German Catholic Bibles often contained the Prayer of Manassah and also the Epistle to the Leodiceans in them; did he "accept" these? Well, LATER he would include one in his translation but not the other.... and clearly he didn't abide by the Council of Florence which did not include either.

Luther SEEMS to somehow embrace "the 66" fully. But there's 8 others - all books found in the German Catholic tomes of his day - that he often uses and included in his translation, since he wanted to translate the books Germans used. But he shares a tradition - one very common in his day - that these "others" (and he never suggests there are only 8) - are not to be used canonically, as the canon, as the norm for dogmas. Clearly, he believes we can USE them - they can be very helpful to understand positions - he USES them, just as he very often used quotes from the Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds, the ECF's, even Catholic Canon (declarations of your church) to help. But it really can't be shown that he used these to SOURCE and NORM dogma. The video Andrew shared TRIES to prove that and falls pathetically short. USING isn't declaring such to be canon (the source and norm for dogma).

There are two SEPARATE issues here: 1). What is considered to be CANON (source and norm for Dogma) and what is USEFUL to support and understand such. Christianity has never officially, authoritatively answered this, although there are variant ancient traditions - none ecumenically embraced. 2). How is this set of CANON books to be used? The very status gives a pretty obvious answer - to source and norm dogma. Other's might be secondary to that, under that, useful to support and understand dogma..... or perhaps simply useful in some informational, devotional sense. Again, there's no universal tradition here. I strongly suspect for Luther, the "they" are the first Second level, under the others but can be used to understand and support what CANON Scripture teaches.... I think for Calvin and Anglicanism, it's more the later.


In any case, it seems the Anti-Catholic claims of some modern American "Evangelicals" on this just aren't true (just unhistorical flaming). The RCC didn't ADD anything (to justify wrong teachings), NO, it just codified a long standing tradition of the Latin West and to this day, isn't very definitive on the STATUS of them (at least officially). And the Anti-Protestant claims of a few Roman Catholics - that Luther or Anglicanism or the American Bible Society "ripped out" a bunch of books Christianity put in (to justify rejecting right teachings), NO, different Protestant groups eventually embraced different traditions - a few by formal declarations (such as the Church of England) most by informal custom.

And the claims in these many threads - about Jewish Conspiracies, that Christianity PUT IN some books (they won't identify) and then someone or some thing RIPPED OUT the same (unidentified) books.... that all Christians always had the same Bible with the same books all understood to have the same use.... there's some law about what can be printed and sold as "BIBLE"... and so many more claims.... well, they just aren't true. There's no conspiracy here... nothing demonic or even insincere... just different traditions embraced differently. And rather than turning this into yet another Anti-Catholic and Anti-Protestant attack... and a FLOOD of false or at least unsubstantiated claims.... I think it better to embrace and celebrate the amazing ecumenical, ancient embrace of "the 66" and that for virtually every doctrine of every church, we look to those 66 - without repudiating anything that is helpful, especially very ancient works used by so many for so long. ALL OF US use writings not in the 66, ALL Christians do - and always have. But when it comes to dogma, we all seem to lean on those 66. In MY Catholic experience, NOTHING from outside the 66 was ever used as a sermon text, as a Bible study or even mentioned (well, I recall a wedding that used something from Tobit, but not to norm some dogma but to show the greatness of God's gift of marriage).



MoreCoffee.... my position (which so angers two here) is that if you want to read and use 1 Maccabees or Tobit.. GREAT! Luther did, and he encouraged it. And if some "Evangelical" doesn't want to read or use either of those - but some book by Max Lacado I'm pretty much okay with that too. But to insist, "Christianity declared that to be inerrant, fully-canonical, inscripturated words of God that - by itself - can source and norm Dogma and there must be some international law mandating it appear in any tome printed or sold with the word BIBLE on the cover" well, now we have a different discussion. ALL CHRISTIANS have never agreed on WHICH "them" beyond the 66 are canon, or exactly HOW they are to be used.. and this never was a problem until some Protestants and the Catholic Church made it one - each to somehow condemn the other. Lutherans, I'm pleased to say, have pretty much stayed out of this.



A blessed Easter season to you and yours.


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

Deuterocanonical means "of the second canon" - Miriam Webster's dictionary gives "Definition of deuterocanonical: of, relating to, or constituting the books of Scripture contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew canon".

The definition from Josiah is not a received standard definition.

We can, of course, argue about which word to use for that particular set of uninspired books.

And waste more time at the keyboard.

Interestingly enough, Article VI of the Articles of Religion, which almost everyone here seems to have referred to, doesn't use any special term for these books. There are the books of the Bible...and then there are "other" writings which aren't.

Do you like these "others?" Or some of them at least? Do they have some use?

Either way, should anything that is not taught in the 66 books we all accept be considered necessary for salvation? That's the question.

Well, no.

Okay, then.

 

[MoreCoffee]

should anything that is not taught in the 66 books ... be considered necessary for salvation?

Yes.

 

[Andrew]

The same is true for the meetings of the RCC at Florence in the 15th Century and Trent in the 16th. Establishing the UNIQUE collection of that one denomination (to which no other has or ever has agreed). I agree, there was an informal (and fairly loose) TRADITION within that single church body - the Latin, Western church - which those meetings largely embraced. But it is a tradition and finally decision of only that one church.

And it seems your church has never officially declared that that unique "set" of exactly 73 are EQUAL in every sense, all canonical (meaning, to be used as the canon - the source and norm for dogma) although that is a very common view in the Catholic Church today.

Now, I don't think that reality proves the claims made here: That Christianity declared the EXACT SET of books listed in Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles to be the canonical, inerrant, divinely inscripturated words of God - no more, no less - and that every Bible found in Christianity from the Coptic Church to the Lutheran one have always been exactly the same (no other books, all those books) until one individual Bible Society in the USA "ripped out" some. I think we have TRADITIONS .... not fully universal, not perfect.... nor so firmly or universally or authoritatively pinned down. Although some churches (like yours) did so EVENTUALLY ... and only for it itself alone.





I think DIFFERENT issues conveniently get confused. Perhaps not always on purpose. Luther did not inherit ONE BIBLE that every Christian on the planet accepted exactly the same: Same exact books, same exact use. As noted above by several posters, there were various traditions, side by side. I don't think it's entirely possible to know Luther's view while he was Catholic... He was a German and German Catholic Bibles often contained the Prayer of Manassah and also the Epistle to the Leodiceans in them; did he "accept" these? Well, LATER he would include one in his translation but not the other.... and clearly he didn't abide by the Council of Florence which did not include either.

Luther SEEMS to somehow embrace "the 66" fully. But there's 8 others - all books found in the German Catholic tomes of his day - that he often uses and included in his translation, since he wanted to translate the books Germans used. But he shares a tradition - one very common in his day - that these "others" (and he never suggests there are only 8) - are not to be used canonically, as the canon, as the norm for dogmas. Clearly, he believes we can USE them - they can be very helpful to understand positions - he USES them, just as he very often used quotes from the Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds, the ECF's, even Catholic Canon (declarations of your church) to help. But it really can't be shown that he used these to SOURCE and NORM dogma. The video Andrew shared TRIES to prove that and falls pathetically short. USING isn't declaring such to be canon (the source and norm for dogma).

There are two SEPARATE issues here: 1). What is considered to be CANON (source and norm for Dogma) and what is USEFUL to support and understand such. Christianity has never officially, authoritatively answered this, although there are variant ancient traditions - none ecumenically embraced. 2). How is this set of CANON books to be used? The very status gives a pretty obvious answer - to source and norm dogma. Other's might be secondary to that, under that, useful to support and understand dogma..... or perhaps simply useful in some informational, devotional sense. Again, there's no universal tradition here. I strongly suspect for Luther, the "they" are the first Second level, under the others but can be used to understand and support what CANON Scripture teaches.... I think for Calvin and Anglicanism, it's more the later.


In any case, it seems the Anti-Catholic claims of some modern American "Evangelicals" on this just aren't true (just unhistorical flaming). The RCC didn't ADD anything (to justify wrong teachings), NO, it just codified a long standing tradition of the Latin West and to this day, isn't very definitive on the STATUS of them (at least officially). And the Anti-Protestant claims of a few Roman Catholics - that Luther or Anglicanism or the American Bible Society "ripped out" a bunch of books Christianity put in (to justify rejecting right teachings), NO, different Protestant groups eventually embraced different traditions - a few by formal declarations (such as the Church of England) most by informal custom.

And the claims in these many threads - about Jewish Conspiracies, that Christianity PUT IN some books (they won't identify) and then someone or some thing RIPPED OUT the same (unidentified) books.... that all Christians always had the same Bible with the same books all understood to have the same use.... there's some law about what can be printed and sold as "BIBLE"... and so many more claims.... well, they just aren't true. There's no conspiracy here... nothing demonic or even insincere... just different traditions embraced differently. And rather than turning this into yet another Anti-Catholic and Anti-Protestant attack... and a FLOOD of false or at least unsubstantiated claims.... I think it better to embrace and celebrate the amazing ecumenical, ancient embrace of "the 66" and that for virtually every doctrine of every church, we look to those 66 - without repudiating anything that is helpful, especially very ancient works used by so many for so long. ALL OF US use writings not in the 66, ALL Christians do - and always have. But when it comes to dogma, we all seem to lean on those 66. In MY Catholic experience, NOTHING from outside the 66 was ever used as a sermon text, as a Bible study or even mentioned (well, I recall a wedding that used something from Tobit, but not to norm some dogma but to show the greatness of God's gift of marriage).



MoreCoffee.... my position (which so angers two here) is that if you want to read and use 1 Maccabees or Tobit.. GREAT! Luther did, and he encouraged it. And if some "Evangelical" doesn't want to read or use either of those - but some book by Max Lacado I'm pretty much okay with that too. But to insist, "Christianity declared that to be inerrant, fully-canonical, inscripturated words of God that - by itself - can source and norm Dogma and there must be some international law mandating it appear in any tome printed or sold with the word BIBLE on the cover" well, now we have a different discussion. ALL CHRISTIANS have never agreed on WHICH "them" beyond the 66 are canon, or exactly HOW they are to be used.. and this never was a problem until some Protestants and the Catholic Church made it one - each to somehow condemn the other. Lutherans, I'm pleased to say, have pretty much stayed out of this.



A blessed Easter season to you and yours.


- Josiah




.

Believe me it does not offend me that you find these books to be of lukewarm value to Christianity, but there are literally volumes and volumes of writings from early Christians who embraced them as Holy Scripture and quoted from them more than they did the other books of the OT.

Oh btw, the "Conspiracy Theory" strawman argument is a bit humorous because leading Rabbis today believe what Rufinus was concerned about regarding Jerome, that it would reflect on the Apostles. Rabbis say that Jesus and thr Apostles weren't really Jews and were illiterate so when they misquote the Old Testament, the NT writers went back and altered the Septuagint to fix the issue... lol would talk about a conspiracy!

Rufinus btw would be the Alex Jones of the WiLd- eYeD Jewish Conspiracy Theory you strawmaned, he believed that unbeliving Rabbis tricked his gullible life-long friend, Jerome, into throwing a wrench into Church tradition, which reflects back on the Apostles rendering them ignorant and illiterate of sacred Scripture, leaving behind an assortment of corrupted text and uninspired spurious books for their churches to inherit and become martyrs to for centuries.. until a merry sect of Jews found it in their heart to bless the Christians with the correct books that the apostles failed at doing.

 

[Albion]

Believe me it does not offend me that you find these books to be of lukewarm value to Christianity, but there are literally volumes and volumes of writings from early Christians who embraced them as Holy Scripture and quoted from them more than they did the other books of the OT.

Has anyone said that they must not be read? Has someone written that nobody ever thought these books might be inspired?

Could we possibly stick to the subject?

 

[Josiah]

Believe me it does not offend me that you find these books to be of lukewarm value to Christianity, but there are literally volumes and volumes of writings from early Christians who embraced them as Holy Scripture

Yet you can't find even ONE - not even one - who states that in their own fallible, personal, individual opinion, the "them" that you can't identify are inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God equal to say the Pentetuch or the Epistle to the Romans in every way... just folks who quote from one of the "them" (as you'll find Christians today quoting form some book from Max Lacado).

I guess you've never heard a pastor quote from some book, some article, some newspaper, some song, some movie, some TV show... because if you had, that would PROVE that articles, newspapers, songs, Hollywood are all inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and legally must appear in every tome with BIBLE on the cover... and it's some Jewish Conspiracy that that Hollywood and articles and songs are not considered inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God that legally must appear in every tome with the word BIBLE on the cover.

Oh btw, the "Conspiracy Theory" strawman argument is a bit humorous

I think so too. This idea that some unknown, unidentified Jews deleted Psalm 151 from their Bible (LXX) because Christians used it to support their gospel but kept the book of Isaiah because no Christians never used it... it's pretty humorous.



Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171




.

 

[Andrew]

Has anyone said that they must not be read? Has someone written that nobody ever thought these books might be inspired?

Could we possibly stick to the subject?

The subject is in regards to the books in the received text of the early churches ...which were undoubtedly inherited from the first churches ..which were undoubtedly established by the Apostles and their bishops... who undoubtedly entrusted their congregations with these text and to be used in the church as Scripture... from whence come forth the tradition of the recieved text of the Christians into the formation of the Holy Bible for centuries and centuries of generations and generations of Christendom all the way up to the 19th century...

This was done by a printing corporation who exploited Protestants and Catholicism by charging Protestants the same amount for a lighter book, saving the corporation money on printing and paper, then overcharging Catholic priests to add the deuterocanon back into a limited amount of Bibles at a far greater price than before they ever removed the books...

I personally stand with Christian Holy Bible Tradition over a Broken Christian Holy Bible Tradition....

regarding this subject.

 

[Andrew]

Yet you can't find even ONE - not even one - who states that in their own fallible, personal, individual opinion, the "them" that you can't identify are inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God equal to say the Pentetuch or the Epistle to the Romans in every way... just folks who quote from one of the "them" (as you'll find Christians today quoting form some book from Max Lacado).

I guess you've never heard a pastor quote from some book, some article, some newspaper, some song, some movie, some TV show... because if you had, that would PROVE that articles, newspapers, songs, Hollywood are all inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and legally must appear in every tome with BIBLE on the cover... and it's some Jewish Conspiracy that that Hollywood and articles and songs are not considered inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God that legally must appear in every tome with the word BIBLE on the cover.





I think so too. This idea that some unknown, unidentified Jews deleted Psalm 151 from their Bible (LXX) because Christians used it to support their gospel but kept the book of Isaiah because no Christians never used it... it's pretty humorous.



Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171




.

An unbelieving Rabbi, Jerome, and Apostle Peter walk into a bar.

The unbelieving Rabbi tells Jerome that the Christian bible has ApOcRyPhA books in them

Jerome turns around and kicks Peters stool from under him and says "THESE BOOKS AREN'T INSPIRED!"

The unbelieving Rabbi opens a bag of popcorn

 

[Josiah]

The subject is in regards to the books in the received text of the early churches

...but you don't know WHICH books...or HOW they were received...

...which were undoubtedly

... but you have ZERO evidence....

undoubtedly

... but you have ZERO evidence...

undoubtedly

... but you have ZERO evidence....

whence come forth the tradition

...which tradition? For which books? As what?

This was done by a printing corporation

... WHAT was done? Who made some printing company THE authoritative Ruling Body of all Christianity? And did every Christian from 33 AD on know that?

I personally stand with Christian Holy Bible Tradition over a Broken Christian Holy Bible Tradition....

... which tome? The Coptic one? The Greek Orthodox one? The LXX? The Latin Vulgate one? The Catholic tomes of the Middle Ages that had the Epistle of Leodicea and the Prayer of Manessah in them? Or the ones that didn't? Luthers? The KJV of 1611? Which? And as all in it accepted equally as fully canonical or simply as good to read or as deuterocanonical? WHICH? HOW? ?


And does that prove all your Jewish Conspiracy theories? That God inspired the LXX as the Gentile Bible? That Christianity adopted certain books (you won't name) as all fully canonical, inerrant, equal, inscripturated words of God at some meeting you can't identify so that all Christians had the same Bible until some soceity the the USA ripped out a bunch of them so now Coptic Christians, Syrian Christians, Greek Christians, Catholic Christians and American Evangelicals 200 years ago all have DIFFERENT Bibles?


Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171




.

 

[Andrew]

...but you don't know WHICH books...or HOW they were received...




... but you have ZERO evidence....



... but you have ZERO evidence...




... but you have ZERO evidence....




...which tradition? For which books? As what?




... WHAT was done? Who made some printing company THE authoritative Ruling Body of all Christianity? And did every Christian from 33 AD on know that?




... which tome? The Coptic one? The Greek Orthodox one? The LXX? The Latin Vulgate one? The Catholic tomes of the Middle Ages that had the Epistle of Leodicea and the Prayer of Manessah in them? Or the ones that didn't? Luthers? The KJV of 1611? Which? And as all in it accepted equally as fully canonical or simply as good to read or as deuterocanonical? WHICH? HOW? ?


And does that prove all your Jewish Conspiracy theories? That God inspired the LXX as the Gentile Bible? That Christianity adopted certain books (you won't name) as all fully canonical, inerrant, equal, inscripturated words of God at some meeting you can't identify so that all Christians had the same Bible until some soceity the the USA ripped out a bunch of them so now Coptic Christians, Syrian Christians, Greek Christians, Catholic Christians and American Evangelicals 200 years ago all have DIFFERENT Bibles?


Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171




.

So we not only had weird apocrypha books in the bible but we actually had a BIBLE that didn't come from a church authority??? Why was it so wide spread throughout many churches. And why would greeks and greek speaking Hebrews ever read a GREEK translation of HEBREW?? That it totally absurd to believe that the first Bibles originated from that! Yuck!

You go round and round with these little ditties...

Like Yeah im sure the New Testament got in the Bible but I can't prove how exactly it happened, no one was there that's alive today, but it did happen and it's in our Bible.... indubitably!