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]

Those opposing the inclusion of the seven missing books and two eviscerated books in their bibles appear to rely on fear of contamination by allegedly un-inspired books in their bibles, uncertainty about which allegedly un-inspired books are intended to be included, and doubt about the history of the inclusion of the books in the holy scripture.

But the truth is that the councils in North Africa at Hippo and Carthage were significant regional councils and the council at Rome was a large regional council. These councils affirm the 73 books received by the Catholic Church today.

The canons of the councils at Hippo and Carthage were affirmed at the ecumenical council of Florence and once more at the ecumenical council of Trent.

The manuscript bibles of ancient times and the middles ages included the 73 books in the canon lists from Hippo, Carthage, and Rome.

The printed bibles from Guttenberg's press and many other presses included the books in the canon lists from Hippo, Carthage, and Rome.

These are powerful arguments for the inclusion of these books {Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and the complete text of Esther and the complete text of Daniel} in bibles.

Protestants can remove them and eviscerate Esther and Daniel if they want. That is up to them.

If you want a complete bible then avoid the short versions offered by many publishers.

 

[NathanH83]

Those opposing the inclusion of the seven missing books and two eviscerated books in their bibles appear to rely on fear of contamination by allegedly un-inspired books in their bibles, uncertainty about which allegedly un-inspired books are intended to be included, and doubt about the history of the inclusion of the books in the holy scripture.

But the truth is that the councils in North Africa at Hippo and Carthage were significant regional councils and the council at Rome was a large regional council. These councils affirm the 73 books received by the Catholic Church today.

The canons of the councils at Hippo and Carthage were affirmed at the ecumenical council of Florence and once more at the ecumenical council of Trent.

The manuscript bibles of ancient times and the middles ages included the 73 books in the canon lists from Hippo, Carthage, and Rome.

The printed bibles from Guttenberg's press and many other presses included the books in the canon lists from Hippo, Carthage, and Rome.

These are powerful arguments for the inclusion of these books {Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and the complete text of Esther and the complete text of Daniel} in bibles.

Protestants can remove them and eviscerate Esther and Daniel if they want. That is up to them.

If you want a complete bible then avoid the short versions offered by many publishers.

The problem is that Protestants are spreading blatant lies that are factually and historically untrue, and can be undeniably proven to be untrue. They say that ZERO Christians accepted them as scripture before 1546. That’s a lie. That is a factual, historical error. They make many similar errors and lies.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Have you seen that clip from Big Bang Theory about the number 73?

No, was it funny?

 

[NathanH83]

No, was it funny?

It’s hilarious. But it’s more than funny. It shows that there’s something significant about the number 73.

 

[NathanH83]

No, was it funny?

73 is the 21st prime number.
Its mirror 37 is the 12th prime number
12 is the mirror of 21.
21 is the product of 7 x 3.

 

[Albion]

The problem is that Protestants are spreading blatant lies that are factually and historically untrue, and can be undeniably proven to be untrue. They say that ZERO Christians accepted them as scripture before 1546. That’s a lie. That is a factual, historical error. They make many similar errors and lies.

Unidentified, unnamed, and uncounted "Protestants" might say just about anything--exactly as "Catholics" do.

In other words, your bluster means nothing at all.

 

[Albion]

But the truth is that the councils in North Africa at Hippo and Carthage were significant regional councils and the council at Rome was a large regional council. These councils affirm the 73 books received by the Catholic Church today.

The canons of the councils at Hippo and Carthage were affirmed at the ecumenical council of Florence and once more at the ecumenical council of Trent.

Only some of the books of the Apocrypha were affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. We've already noted that.

And some of these books were jettisoned by the Roman Catholic Church at that time. We've already noted that as well.

The fact, therefore, is that all the huffing and puffing and table-pounding on this thread that has attempted to convince readers that the bad 'ol Protestants got rid of Bible books is not true UNLESS IT IS TRUE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AS WELL.

The reason that BOTH groups could make that move in the 16th century is because those books could be determined by both sides to be uninspired. And that's because they never had been determined to be of equal authority with the inspired books of the Old and New Testaments. Not in the 4th century by the councils named or at any other time.

 

[Albion]

Those opposing the inclusion of the seven missing books and two eviscerated books in their bibles appear to rely on fear of contamination by allegedly un-inspired books in their bibles,

That's an interesting theory. What evidence of this alleged "fear" can you provide? Or is the thread now reduced to being a contest between posters who have nothing new to add but can instead turn to dressing up their same contentions with sharper and more exotic jargon, such as "eviscerated" and "fear?" LOL

 

[MoreCoffee]

Only some of the books of the Apocrypha were affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century.

The above is an incorrect statement.

See post #352

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)​

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis.
• Exodus.
• Leviticus.
• Numbers.
• Deuteronomy.
• Joshua the Son of Nun.
• The Judges.
• Ruth.
• The Kings, iv. books.
• The Chronicles, ij. books.
• Job.
• The Psalter.
• The Five books of Solomon. [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus]
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
• Isaiah.
• Jeremiah. [Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch]
• Ezechiel.
• Daniel.
• Tobit.
• Judith.
• Esther.
• Ezra, ij. books.
• Macchabees, ij. books.
  • The New Testament.
    • The Gospels, iv. books.
    • The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
    • The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
    • The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
    • The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
    • The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
    • The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
    • The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church. (from Newadvent).

 

[Albion]

The above is an incorrect statement.

See post #352

All you're doing there is verify what I have described before. The Apocrypha, that particular collection of controversial books, was always in question before the Reformation, and the Roman Church wound up accepting some of them but not all of them while the Protestant churches decided against all of them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Apocrypha, that particular collection of controversial books, was always in question before the Reformation

The above is an untrue statement.

 

[Albion]

The above is an untrue statement.

See post #408

 

[NathanH83]

Unidentified, unnamed, and uncounted "Protestants" might say just about anything--exactly as "Catholics" do.

In other words, your bluster means nothing at all.

Unidentified and unnamed?
I’m talking about you, Buddy. And whoever it was that made the website claiming that Zero Christians prior to 1546 accepted the Apocrypha as canon. You said it, and the makers of that website said it. And it’s FACTUALLY and HISTORICALLY inaccurate.

 

[NathanH83]

All you're doing there is verify what I have described before. The Apocrypha, that particular collection of controversial books, was always in question before the Reformation, and the Roman Church wound up accepting some of them but not all of them while the Protestant churches decided against all of them.

ALWAYS in question?
Always in question BY WHOM?
Be specific.

By the church fathers at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage? No, they didn’t question them. They declared them to be divine canonical scripture.

You’re making broad general statements that ALL Christians EVERYWHERE in Christianity prior to 1546 were doubting the inclusion of these books. That is NOT FACTUAL!

Trent didn’t ADD any books that hadn’t ALREADY BEEN DECLARED to be holy scripture by THREE church councils in the late 4th century.

 

[NathanH83]

Only some of the books of the Apocrypha were affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. We've already noted that.

And some of these books were jettisoned by the Roman Catholic Church at that time. We've already noted that as well.

The fact, therefore, is that all the huffing and puffing and table-pounding on this thread that has attempted to convince readers that the bad 'ol Protestants got rid of Bible books is not true UNLESS IT IS TRUE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AS WELL.

The reason that BOTH groups could make that move in the 16th century is because those books could be determined by both sides to be uninspired. And that's because they never had been determined to be of equal authority with the inspired books of the Old and New Testaments. Not in the 4th century by the councils named or at any other time.

What you’re saying AGAIN is factually and historically inaccurate. There were not Apocryphal books that were jettisoned by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 that were accepted at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.

Tell us, which Books were accepted at the councils in the 4th century that Rome jettisoned in 1546. Name them!

They’re the same books, same list.

 

[Lanman87]

The above is an untrue statement.

Glossa ordinaria- commentary used by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages that was widely read and studied by Theologians.

“The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them.”

It is a true statement that the books in question were always questioned by some in the Catholic church before the reformation. The Glossa Ordinaria is proof of that fact. There was no universal acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church until Trent.


It is wrong if an Evangelical pastor says "NO christians accepted them as canonical before 1546" and it is wrong if a Catholic says "ALL Christians accepted them as canonical before 1546". Neither statement is true.

 

[Josiah]

most Christians are told not to buy a Bible that includes the Apocryphal books

1. WHAT apocryphal books?

2. WHO "tells" them?

3. I'd like to see that "MOST" of the 1.1 billion Catholics are "TOLD" (by who, what?) not to buy a Bible with more than 66 books in it? I'd like to see that "MOST" of the 400 million Orthodox Christians are "TOLD" (by who, what?) not to buy a Bible with more than 66 books in it? I'd like to see that "MOST" of the 70 million Lutherans are "TOLD" this? Are you confusing "Christians" with "Modern American Evangelicals?" or perhaps don't consider any who aren't modern American "evangelicals" to be Christians?

4. I know of no law anywhere that restricts printers, publishing houses or bookstores from making available Bibles with ANYTHING THEY WANT in them. The Bible is not copywritten. There are no laws anywhere about what must be included or excluded between the covers of such a tome. If you want a tome with Psalm 151 in it - IT'S AVAILABLE. If you want a tome with 4 Maccabees in it - IT'S AVAILABLE. If you want a tome that only has 27 NT books in it - IT'S AVAILABLE. And if you want to read The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, First Clement, the Letter of Barnabas, the Epistle to the Leodiceans those are all very easily available too. The very fact that you claim you've read some set of books you call "the Apocrypha" proves they are available.


Nathan, if you want to buy a Bible that has 27-83 books it in, YOU CAN. No one, nothing, is keeping you from it. Buy one you think is right for you. It's legal. It's allowed. It's available. And has been so for centuries. Simple. Easy.



@NathanH83

IF, IF, IF you had been saying, "Look, there are a number of books beyond "the 66" that many Christians have cherished, used, quoted, even placed into collections with "the 66" ... historical and important and helpful books... but works that have largely been forgotten among some Christians today, especially modern American "Evangelicals," and we would be blessed to embrace them again, encouraged to read them." IF, IF, IF you and Andy had said THAT, I would have fully agreed and championed that - quoting Luther and my own parish pastor, noting how some Lutheran Lectionaries include readings from them, how Lutherans have a lectionary exclusively for them (readings for each day of the year from them), how my parish had a 6 month study of them. And I know Albion, Lanman87, Origen and others too would have noted their value.

But that's not what you've said in these many, many threads and posts on the topic of "those books." What we've gotten (more from Andy than you) are...


All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

"The Church" "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

"Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (always the same corpus)....

Every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

The American Bible Society is The Authoritative Ruling Body for Protestantism...

Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..

I (Josiah) rejects the Bible of Luther (although he has and uses one)...

I (Josiah) am a "neo-Lutheran" who is apathetic toward the movement of the" Protestant Deformation" (Whatever that gobbledygook means)

and many more... never substantiated.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

the books in question were always questioned by some in the Catholic church

Some like beef more than lamb others take the opposite view.

 

[NathanH83]

It is wrong if an Evangelical pastor says "NO christians accepted them as canonical before 1546" and it is wrong if a Catholic says "ALL Christians accepted them as canonical before 1546". Neither statement is true.

EXACTLY! Thank you. BOTH of those would be false statements.

 

[NathanH83]

Glossa ordinaria- commentary used by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages that was widely read and studied by Theologians.

“The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them.”

It is a true statement that the books in question were always questioned by some in the Catholic church before the reformation. The Glossa Ordinaria is proof of that fact. There was no universal acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church until Trent.


It is wrong if an Evangelical pastor says "NO christians accepted them as canonical before 1546" and it is wrong if a Catholic says "ALL Christians accepted them as canonical before 1546". Neither statement is true.

Honestly though, I think that what Andrew is saying is more or less correct.

Even though there were some voices in the early church that were casting doubt on the canonicity of the Apocryphal books, such as Athanasius or Mileto, Jerome, or even the council of Laodicea….nonetheless, the majority of mainstream church authorities required the “Apocryphal” books (as we call them) to be left in the Bible.

I don’t know if Laodicea made a Bible with the Apocrypha removed. But even if they did, that’s NOT what prevailed. What prevailed is Bibles with the Apocrypha included. Even some Catholic Popes believed the Apocryphal Books don’t belong, and said so. Nonetheless, they didn’t remove them from the binding of their Latin Vulgate.

It really wasn’t until the 1500’s that the “Apocryphal” books were placed in their own separate section. But that section was still included in the 1500’s translations.

And it wasn’t until the 1600’s when Bibles STARTED to be made without it, though most had it included.

And it wasn’t until the 1800’s when Bible societies refused to use money to print it.

And it wasn’t until 1885 when the King James Version no longer included it.

So this whole idea that the “Apocrypha” so called doesn’t belong in the Bible is a MODERN practice.

Yes, the BELIEF it doesn’t belong is an old belief, but not necessarily a mainstream belief of the early church.

Yet the PRACTICE of printing Bibles without it is a MODERN practice. And I think that’s the general idea that Andrew is trying to get across.