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]

Again, this is not about canon, this is about the traditional series of books that were always in every Holy Bible of both Catholics and Protestants alike.

Then it IS about the canon...

UNLESS you just want us all to know that the uncanonical and uninspired books commonly called "the Apocrypha" were often--but not always and not all of them--included by publishers of Bibles under the same cover with the 66 books of the Bible.

 

[Andrew]

Then it IS about the canon...

UNLESS you just want us all to know that the uncanonical and uninspired books commonly called "the Apocrypha" were often--but not always and not all of them--included by publishers of Bibles under the same cover with the 66 books of the Bible.

I consider them canonical, you don't, that's a topic for another time.

This is mainly about the Protestant Bible never having an issue with the "Apocrypha" books being included in their Bibles until they were, by the so called "Bible" societies, although at first Protestants were against the removal of the Apocryphal section in their Bibles.. Protestants today have no memory of it and would be arguing with the Protestans just a few centuries ago about this very subject.

 

[Albion]

Really? No tradition yet Jerome translated "something" and still every book kept them in the Holy Bible until an authorized Bible Society removed them in the 19th Century.

I consider them canonical, you don't, that's a topic for another time.

This is mainly about the Protestant Bible never having an issue with the "Apocrypha" books being included in their Bibles until they were, by the so called "Bible" societies, although at first Protestants were against the removal of the Apocryphal section in their Bibles.. Protestants today have no memory of it and would be arguing with the Protestans just a few centuries ago about this very subject.

All right. If we have that claim settled...

We can turn to the related topic you referred to.

These books were rejected by the Protestant reformers and churches in the 16th century. That is crystal clear and has been explained here many times already, most often by our friend Josiah. In addition, the exact source and date have been presented, word for word.

The idea that these books were accepted as divinely inspired until publishing societies removed them from published editions centuries later is a non-starter.

That's for three reasons (all of which have already been addressed here).

For one, those were publishing houses, not churches.

For the second, the Protestant statements of belief which very specifically and emphatically state that these books are not scripture date from much earlier.

And for another, even the Roman Catholic Church had removed some of them in the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent. She continued to say that the ones she chose to retain really are part of the Bible, but their action against some of the books of the Apocrypha exposes the falsehood that says they--all of them--were received as part of the Bible until the nineteenth century!

 

[Andrew]

All right. If we have that claim settled...

We can turn to the related topic you referred to.

These books were rejected by the Protestant reformers and churches in the 16th century. That is crystal clear and has been explained here many times already, most often by our friend Josiah. In addition, the exact source and date have been presented, word for word.

The idea that these books were accepted as divinely inspired until publishing societies removed them from published editions centuries later is a non-starter.

That's for three reasons (all of which have already been addressed here).

For one, those were publishing houses, not churches.

For the second, the Protestant statements of belief which very specifically and emphatically state that these books are not scripture date from much earlier.

And for another, even the Roman Catholic Church had removed some of them in the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent. She continued to say that the ones she chose to retain really are part of the Bible, but their action against some of the books of the Apocrypha exposes the falsehood that says they--all of them--were received as part of the Bible until the nineteenth century!

Ecclesiasticals, canonical scripture or not, were never removed from the Protestant bible by Protestants nor were they removed for theological reasons. They were removed to by a group of business men to market off of selling Bibles to Christians, they disregarded the entire history of the Bible as the common tradition of both Protestants and Catholics alike regardless of canonicity.
They sided with Protestants so they could remove books and save the cost of paper, they believed Protestants would be perfectly okay with it but they were not!

Again, the removal was no Protestant decision. Not one Protestant has boasted or taken credit for the Protestants bible, it's definitely not Luthers Bible.

 

[Albion]

Ecclesiasticals, canonical scripture or not, were never removed from the Protestant bible by Protestants nor were they removed for theological reasons. They were removed to by a group of business men to market off of selling Bibles to Christians, they disregarded the entire history of the Bible as the common tradition of both Protestants and Catholics alike regardless of canonicity.

Okay, so this has nothing to do with whether the Protestant churches or the Reformers themselves considered the Apocrypha to be inspired writings and, further, it certainly does nothing to suggest that the Apocrypha was ever actually part of the Bible.

 

[Andrew]

Okay, so this has nothing to do with whether the Protestant churches or the Reformers themselves considered the Apocrypha to be inspired writings and, further, it certainly does nothing to suggest that the Apocrypha was ever actually part of the Bible.

They were universal church books (ecclesiastical books)
Apocrypha books were never part of the church nor the Bible... these being heretical books falsely attributed to The Apostles, Mary, Joseph etc

 

[Andrew]

That is not entirely true. While it is true that Chrisitianity is not Judaism and do think we need to take ancient Jewish thought into the equation. The Old Covenant was to the Jews, God's chosen people. By the work of Christ, Gentiles (us) were grafted into Israel. Romans 11:11-24.

One reason I've seen for not accepting the Dueterocanon is that it is up to the Jews to determine the Old Testament books. The Old Covenant was to the Jews and the Old Testament is about the History, Law, and interaction of God with the Jews. Therefore, we should receive the Old Testament books from the Jews and follow their tradition.

For whatever reason, soon after the time of Christ the majority of Jews rejected the Deutero Books. My guess is that it was because the Septuagint was a Greek Translation used by the Hellenistic Jews but not used by the Orthodox Hebrew speaking Jews. Also, the fact that Rome sacked Jerusalem probably made the Jews want to get rid of any hint of anything that wasn't completely Hebrew in nature.

We know that Josephus, the first Century Jewish Historian, does not include them in his list of Old Testament books (but does include all the books of the Protestant Old Testament). So there seems to be a disconnect between the Septuagint and Jewish scholars very early in the 1st Century. A good three hundred years before Jerome argued that we shouldn't accept as part of the Old Covenant what the Jews don't accept.

Josephus didn't even know Hebrew or at least was not fluent in it, his canon list was given to him by his sect of Pharisees, who started an entirely new version of Judaism based on Rabbanic interpretations, Rabbanic commentary, Rabbanic oral law, Rabbanic canon, hence "Rabbanic Judaism" or better yet... Apostate Judaism, who cut off the canon with the last Prophet according to them, cutting off John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, John of Patmos... had we truly used their canon we wouldn't have the Holy Gospels.

Their canon was created for a means to banish Messianic Jews from the synagogues, this is attested to in Scripture, the parents of the Blind man who was healed, kept it a secret to hide their belief in Jesus so that they may still woship in the synagogue.

Jesus also quotes from the same original Hebrew source as the Greek Septuagint does... The Jews mourn the Greek translation on the 10 of Tevet because it converted so many Jews to Christianity.

 

[Albion]

They were universal church books (ecclesiastical books)

"Church books," yes. But not books of the Bible. They never were accepted as books of the Bible.

There is nothing more to be said on that issue.

 

[MoreCoffee]

They never were accepted as books of the Bible.

That is entirely false unless you intended to say "The books that Protestants call 'Apocrypha' were never accepted as inspired books of the bible by most Protestants".

 

[Andrew]

"Church books," yes. But not books of the Bible. They never were accepted as books of the Bible.

There is nothing more to be said on that issue.

Are you serious? The book of Tobit for example, was never accepted into the Bible....as a book? ...really?
Hmmm.

Wow! ...Okay then, well... I guess this pretty much ends the discussion.

 

[Albion]

Are you serious? The book of Tobit for example, was never accepted into the Bible....as a book? ...really?
Hmmm.

That's right.

.........................................................................................................
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The Book of Tobit (/ˈtoʊbɪt/)[a], also known as the Book of Tobias or the Book of Tobi, is a 3rd or early 2nd century BC Jewish work describing how God tests the faithful, responds to prayers, and protects the covenant community (i.e., the Israelites)...
The book is included in the Catholic and Orthodox canons but not in the Jewish; the Protestant tradition places it in the Apocrypha, with Anabaptists, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists recognising it as useful for purposes of edification and liturgy, albeit non-canonical in status.[3][4][5][6][1] The vast majority of scholars recognize it as a work of fiction with some historical references.[7]

.........................................................................................................

 

[Josiah]

the fact is that the Jews were divided

1. As MoreCoffee also pointed out, what JEWS did or do is really none of our business.... I'm puzzled by all the Jewish Conspiracy theories presented. I'm really not sure why it matters what the JEWS thought. We're Christians.


2. I think it is generally accepted that what IS and IS NOT canonical Scripture was an open question in Jesus' time... There is NOTHING that suggests that any version of the LXX or any other translation was ONLY of books and ALL of the books that the Ruling Body of Judaism had declared to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words. For centuries, people looked to the JEWISH Council of Jamnia (90 AD) for the ONLY TIME in the entire history of Judaism where something like this was done (90 AD - centuries after the LXX, decades after appearance of Chrsitianity, probably after most of the NT was written), but more recent scholarship suggests it really didn't happen then either - in fact, Judaism has NEVER officially declared what is and is not the written canon for JUDAISM - not that Christians should care.

So the evidence doesn't point in one direction as you suggested; it's just the opposite.

I think it also was MoreCoffee who noted there were SEVERAL DIFFERENT traditions/opinions about books beyond the Jewish ordinary embrace of 39 books (by our count)... DIFFERENT ones, not just one tradition in Judaism. What happened in Judaism is that ONE of those prevailed, it seems informally... embraced in a process we simply know nothing about. But that process - as informal and unofficial as it was - was JEWISH.


It seems there are some modern American "Evangelicals" who hold that God sent out this email in 100 AD in which God listed all the books He inspired and that Christians (not Jews) are to used canonically. Every Christian got that - and so every Christian had the same Bible with the same material in it regarded in exactly the same way. It's just that ONLY modern American Evangelicals know what that e-mail said, Coptic Christians, Ethiopian Christians, Syrian Christians, Greek and Russian Christians, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopalians all forgot the email from God and added a bunch of stuff God never mentioned in that E-Mail (that no one can find). But this is simply not true (or better, simply entirely unsubstantiated). There were various traditions... that differed from place to place and from time to time.... and EVENTUALLY (centuries later) some became fairly well embraced by some Christians, others by others. There never has been some pan-Christian decision about this. Not that it has mattered much.

It seems there are some modern Roman Catholics who hold that Jesus told all 14 Apostles the exact list of books that God inspired (or would inspired) and which ones God did not, and they wrote down this list and Peter gave it to all the Catholic Bishops and this has continued unbroken for 2000 years (it's just that no one can find that list Jesus wrote) and so all Christians have and always have had the exact same Bible it has had for the past 500 years - all identical in content, all content viewed exactly as it has been in the RCC for the last 200 years. Syrian Bibles have always had 73 books in them - NEVER more or less, Russian Orthodox Bibles always have 73 Books in them - NEVER more or less - because of that list from Jesus that no one can find. But this simply isn't true (or better, it's entirely unsubstantiated). What that single, individual denomination eventually did in the 15th or 16th Century is to embrace one of MANY traditions. Not that it has mattered a bit, not at all.




Now, IMO, the stunning thing is that in perhaps 99% of the cases, the difference isn't in "the 66" that are actually used canonically (to source and norm dogma). The differences are in some 7-20 or so other books, most seemly Jewish and a few Christian. Things like Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manassah, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, the Letter to the Leodiceans, etc. And with the very rare example of one verse in one of these books that some Catholics used to use to try to support its own unique dogma of Purgatory, none of those books have been used canonically - to source and norm dogma. So whether CAN be used canonically seems irrelevant because never have they been (except again in years past by a few Roman Catholics for one of the unique dogmas of that denomination). People have surely READ many of these.... quoted and used them.... regarded them as helpful and informational and inspirational.... but not used canonically (to source and norm dogma) so whether they CAN be so used (because they are on that E-mail Evangelicals might think Jesus sent out) OR on that list some Roman Catholics think Jesus gave to Peter) doesn't much matter because in 2000 years, they have not been so used. In the 1500 years before Luther, NO Christian church agreed with ANY other on these.... NO church had the same Bible as any other... why there were even different Catholic ones... but this was not an issue of dispute because, well, no one used them as canon, they only read them for information and inspiration, they were used devotionally. OR at best (as Luther did) to SUPPORT teachings, not source and norm them. Instead of shouting about WHICH tradition about these 7-20 books is right, maybe we should rejoice in the very, very strong and ancient and ecumenical tradition around "the 66." The "set" we use canonically.





.

 

[Josiah]

Protestant Bible never having an issue with the "Apocrypha" books being included in their Bibles

1. WHICH books? You do know there is not - and has NEVER been - one tradition about WHICH ones, which is why you can't find two denominations on the planet - now or ever in world history - that embraces the SAME ones - much less in the same way. You know this but it seems need to ignore it.


2. You are correct that generally, Protestants (and Catholics and Orthodox) have generally not had an issue with what publishing houses, societies and book stores put in tomes with BIBLE on the cover. And there goes your entire argument, your whole point about "something" or "someone" demanding what be in or not be in such.

AGAIN, my tome with BIBLE on the cover has nearly 2,800 pages in it... the Table of Contents lists over 300 things. No Lutheran denomination, no Reformed denomination, no Orthodox denomination.... not the Catholic Church or the Russian Orthodox Church or the Coptic Orthodox Church has complaint about that to my knowledge, no international law has been violated, no book store has been shut down as a ult.

So, WHERE is this precise list of books that Christianity PUT IN? Give the list and state the date and place of the meeting where Christianity did that. And WHERE is the proof that Christianity or Protestantism RIPPED OUT some on that list from that authoritative, ecumenical meeting? And where is the evidence that anyone or any denomination or any country forbids people to read say 3 Maccabees or Psalm 151 or Tobit or the Didache ... who or what told the Lutheran publishing house that it cannot print a Bible with 2,000 pages in it but MUST limit all such to 72 pages, and MUST have 73 or 74 or 77 or 82 or 90 books listed in the Table of Contents (but the tome can't have a table of contents since that's not Scripture)? You keep showing how absurd your whole point is. You keep showing how it's just not true.

You seem to persist in denouncing your own position.

Protestants today have no memory of it and would be arguing with the Protestans just a few centuries ago about this very subject....

I find it curious that you insist the Lutherans ESPECIALLY are guilty of this... and yet my Bible, published by a Lutheran publishing house, has one MORE book in it than Catholic tomes. And it was published in 2012, Where is the proof that Lutherans are "the prime example" of this among all the world's denominations and yet my Bible has one MORE in it than the modern Catholic one does? Explain that.... never mind, you said you "couldn't care less."

I think your rants - ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.... and about which you said "I could care less" if are true... are pretty silly, and clearly are things not even you accept as true (but again, "I could care less")





.

 

[Albion]

1. As MoreCoffee also pointed out, what JEWS did or do is really none of our business....

I'm not sure that I can agree with that. If what the Jews considered to be divine revelation, and which Jesus often cited in his talks, is none of our business, why did the catholic councils that established the canon give them any attention at all? We should--logically speaking--dump the whole of the Old Testament since, after all, that's just what some other religion believed in. (?)

More to the point perhaps, I was responding to another of those pro-Apocrypha posts that took the position that if "THE" Jews considered this or that book to be Holy Scripture, then Christians must do the same (and allegedly did just that).

Well, whatever else may be said about this issue we've been discussing, "THE" Jews did NOT accept the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture; the Jews of the time were divided right down the middle on this subject.

It seems there are some modern Roman Catholics who hold that Jesus told all 14 Apostles the exact list of books that God inspired (or would inspired) and which ones God did not, and they wrote down this list and Peter gave it to all the Catholic Bishops and this has continued unbroken for 2000 years (it's just that no one can find that list Jesus wrote) and so all Christians have and always have had the exact same Bible it has had for the past 500 years - all identical in content, all content viewed exactly as it has been in the RCC for the last 200 years.

It's just about all modern Roman Catholics, in fact. At least those who deal in the theological bases of their church's doctrines.

Wave the phrase "was handed down from the Apostles" in the face of other Christians, and voila, any apologist for the innovations of the RCC thinks he's played his all-purpose trump card in any debate involving doctrine.

 

[Josiah]

Andy -


Your latest in a long, long chain of similar claims:

I (Josiah) am "the PRIME EXAMPLE of Lutherans who ESPECIALLY discourage the reading of the Apocrypha."

Just your last claim.... ME (Josiah) in particular... am the "prime example" of Lutherans, and Lutherans "especially discourage reading the Apocrypha."

Yet from my 11, 500+ posts, you haven't supplied even one that has me saying that. And nothing from the other 71,999.999 Lutherans.

And you offered NOTHING, nothing at all, nothing whatsoever, from any of over 300 Lutheran denominations to substantiate your claim.

But here is what you DID say, "I couldn't care less."

You want us to just "take my word for it" and "you could care less" about any substantiation. Frankly, I think it's powerful proof that we should not just "take your word for it."


Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[Andrew]

That's right.

.........................................................................................................
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The Book of Tobit (/ˈtoʊbɪt/)[a], also known as the Book of Tobias or the Book of Tobi, is a 3rd or early 2nd century BC Jewish work describing how God tests the faithful, responds to prayers, and protects the covenant community (i.e., the Israelites)...
The book is included in the Catholic and Orthodox canons but not in the Jewish; the Protestant tradition places it in the Apocrypha, with Anabaptists, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists recognising it as useful for purposes of edification and liturgy, albeit non-canonical in status.[3][4][5][6][1] The vast majority of scholars recognize it as a work of fiction with some historical references.[7]

.........................................................................................................

They were still in all Bibles regardless of what canon Protestants hold to, it was a group of businessmen in the late 19th and early 20th century that took them out... I guess you believe these men were divinely inspired by God to break the tradition of the Bible. The original 1611 KJV is a good example of the traditional books included in the Bibles.
Btw, SCHOLARS also believe that Daniel was written during the time of the Maccabees. SCHOLARS believe that practically all of the Bible is fiction.

 

[NathanH83]

"Church books," yes. But not books of the Bible. They never were accepted as books of the Bible.

There is nothing more to be said on that issue.

“Never accepted”
Why do people always say that? Never accepted by whom? Rome, Hippo, and Carthage? Nicaea? Clement? Who?!!!!

The fringe groups like Ebionites didn’t even believe Jesus was born of a virgin!!!! Who cares if some fringe group rejected the Apocryphal books!!! The question is: Did the main, legitimate church councils accept the Apocryphal books? And the answer is YES!!!

 

[Albion]

They were still in all Bibles regardless of what canon Protestants hold to, it was a group of businessmen in the late 19th and early 20th century that took them out...

They were not part of the Bible.

I guess you believe these men were divinely inspired by God to break the tradition of the Bible.

The publishers? I don't see them as doing anything remarkable, one way or the other, and it has no theological implications.

The original 1611 KJV is a good example of the traditional books included in the Bibles.

You'll guess whatever might save your failed argument, whether it's accurate of not. As has been noted before, Bible publishers have also included maps of the Holy Lands, introductions, and other material that isn't divine revelation. None of that has any bearing on what the churches believe(d) about the Bible.

 

[Andrew]

They were not part of the Bible.


The publishers? I don't see them as doing anything remarkable, one way or the other, and it has no theological implications.


You'll guess whatever might save your failed argument, whether it's accurate of not. As has been noted before, Bible publishers have also included maps of the Holy Lands, introductions, and other material that isn't divine revelation. None of that has any bearing on what the churches believe(d) about the Bible.

They were in every Chrisitian Bibles from the 4th Century AD to the 19th Century AD.

 

[Albion]

“Never accepted”

That's correct.

Why do people always say that? Never accepted by whom? Rome, Hippo, and Carthage? Nicaea? Clement? Who?!!!!

By the Church. It's the Christian churches which made the determination. Individual people can and have their own ideas about what books belong in the Bible, what doctrines they want to believe, who Christ actually was, whether they care to attend church worship services, and much much more...and all of that is just personal opinion having nothing to do with this discussion. Neither do the opinions of a handful of rebel writers or clergy scattered over hundreds of years of time have any weight when it comes to the official doctrine of the church of Christ.

Who cares if some fringe group rejected the Apocryphal books!!!

You, apparently, since you promote the false claim that the Apocrypha was part of the Old Testament in every published Bible until the 19th century.

However, it is meaningless to say that someone rejected as Bible books certain writings that never were part of the Bible in the first place!

The question is: Did the main, legitimate church councils accept the Apocryphal books? And the answer is YES!!!

The correct answer is NO!!!

And this essentially ends me correcting the baseless theories of the people here who have no evidence to present but just keep repeating the same disinformation after having been set straight concerning the historic record.