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

[Lanman87]

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.

My point is that there has never been, for lack of a better word, Catholicity (Universal Acceptance) of those particular books. For the remaining Old Testament books and all of the New Testament books there is a "Catholicity"'. By the 5th century there were no voices in the church saying they didn't belong in the canon, at least none by reputable Bishops and Theologians. This lack of universal acceptance, not only in the ancient church but also in the medieval church, is one of the reasons Protestants give for not including it in the Biblical Canon.

Now if you want to argue that the modern Evangelical church is doing itself a disservice by completely ignoring these books then I tend to agree. If Zondervan, Crossway, or Lifeway came out with a Bible with the Dueterobooks that included a modern preface that is equal to the Glossa Ordinaria then I would probably purchase it. However, I wouldn't consider those books to be God Breathed Scripture but instead would be history/spiritual books that show Israel in the time between the Prophets and Christ.

 

[NathanH83]

My point is that there has never been, for lack of a better word, Catholicity (Universal Acceptance) of those particular books. For the remaining Old Testament books and all of the New Testament books there is a "Catholicity"'. By the 5th century there were no voices in the church saying they didn't belong in the canon, at least none by reputable Bishops and Theologians. This lack of universal acceptance, not only in the ancient church but also in the medieval church, is one of the reasons Protestants give for not including it in the Biblical Canon.

Now if you want to argue that the modern Evangelical church is doing itself a disservice by completely ignoring these books then I tend to agree. If Zondervan, Crossway, or Lifeway came out with a Bible with the Dueterobooks that included a modern preface that is equal to the Glossa Ordinaria then I would probably purchase it. However, I wouldn't consider those books to be God Breathed Scripture but instead would be history/spiritual books that show Israel in the time between the Prophets and Christ.

That’s kind of an irrelevant point though. The church fathers in the early church who were casting doubt on the Apocrypha, like Athanasius and Mileto, they were also casting doubt on Esther as well. They literally bundled Esther with the Apocryphal books. This is clear evidence that there is something wrong with the reasoning Athanasius and Mileto were using to cast doubt on these books. So, because of their rejection of Esther, then Esther also lacks Catholicity, or “universal acceptance”.

But just because some people come along and say “Esther doesn’t belong!” -that doesn’t mean we rip it out and throw it away just because of a few ignorant dissenting voices who clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.

 

[Lanman87]

That’s kind of an irrelevant point though. The church fathers in the early church who were casting doubt on the Apocrypha, like Athanasius and Mileto, they were also casting doubt on Esther as well. They literally bundled Esther with the Apocryphal books. This is clear evidence that there is something wrong with the reasoning Athanasius and Mileto were using to cast doubt on these books. So, because of their rejection of Esther, then Esther also lacks Catholicity, or “universal acceptance”.

But just because some people come along and say “Esther doesn’t belong!” -that doesn’t mean we rip it out and throw it away just because of a few ignorant dissenting voices who clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.

There were a lot of books in the early church that didn't have early "Catholicity". Universal Acceptance developed over time. By the end of the 5th century, and certainly by the end of the 6th century there was a universal acceptance of the New Testament and the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament. No such Catholicity of the DB (Duetero books ) ever existed in the church.

And the folks who said it didn't belong in the Canon were not ignorant. Many were famous and celebrated Theologians and Philosophers. They weren't controversial figures and were considered orthodox by the Catholic church at the time. I learned about Venerable Bede and William of Ockham in my Western Civilization class in College because they had so much influence on Western Thought during the middle ages. Well, they are two who said that all or part of the DB are not part of the Canon. Gregory the Great is one of the most celebrated Popes in history and many consider him the first "True Pope" as he is the first who truly led both the Western and Eastern Churches. Gregory clearly says that Maccabees is "not part of the Canon". They are clearly not "ignorant dissenting voices who didn't know what they are talking about".

The Glossa Ordinaria (which I quoted its preface) " became the standard commented edition of the bible from the 13th century on" .

 

[Josiah]

The problem is that Protestants are spreading blatant lies that are factually and historically untrue, and can be undeniably proven to be untrue.

Agreed....

Here's some of those just at CH in threads about the Apocrypha...

+ Jesus declared the list of what is and is not fully canonical

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

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

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

+ Some unknown Jews ripped out a bunch of books from the Bible (like Psalm 151) because Christians used them to support the Gospel but left in books like Isaiah because no Christians used those.

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

+ 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"....

and many, many more...

I've never called these "blatant lies" but simply unsubstantiated.




.

 

[NathanH83]

There were a lot of books in the early church that didn't have early "Catholicity". Universal Acceptance developed over time. By the end of the 5th century, and certainly by the end of the 6th century there was a universal acceptance of the New Testament and the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament. No such Catholicity of the DB (Duetero books ) ever existed in the church.

And the folks who said it didn't belong in the Canon were not ignorant. Many were famous and celebrated Theologians and Philosophers. They weren't controversial figures and were considered orthodox by the Catholic church at the time. I learned about Venerable Bede and William of Ockham in my Western Civilization class in College because they had so much influence on Western Thought during the middle ages. Well, they are two who said that all or part of the DB are not part of the Canon. Gregory the Great is one of the most celebrated Popes in history and many consider him the first "True Pope" as he is the first who truly led both the Western and Eastern Churches. Gregory clearly says that Maccabees is "not part of the Canon". They are clearly not "ignorant dissenting voices who didn't know what they are talking about".

The Glossa Ordinaria (which I quoted its preface) " became the standard commented edition of the bible from the 13th century on" .

Isn’t Gregory the one who changed when New Years takes place?

 

[Lanman87]

Isn’t Gregory the one who changed when New Years takes place?

No, that was Pope Gregory XIII in 1582

Gregory the Great is Pope Gregory I in the 6th Century. Gregorian Chant is named after him.

 

[NathanH83]

No, that was Pope Gregory XIII in 1582

Gregory the Great is Pope Gregory I in the 6th Century. Gregorian Chant is named after him.

Well, whatever the case, you’re talking about the 6th century. I’m talking about books that were declared scripture in the 300’s, were quoted as scripture by the 1st/2nd generation of Christians who knew the disciples, and referenced as scripture by the disciples themselves in Hebrews 11:35 and Hebrews 13:2.

So, even though they might not have gained “Catholicity” in the 6th century, I really don’t care. Because the significant people who know their stuff provides the evidence I need.

Would you reject a doctrine that Jesus himself accepted just because the church universally rejected it in the 6th century? Didn’t think so. In the same way, the disciples referenced apocryphal books as scripture, and so did the Apostolic fathers who knew the disciples. That’s why those church councils in the 300’s are so significant.

 

[Albion]

So, even though they might not have gained “Catholicity” in the 6th century, I really don’t care.

All right. So now we have both of the "Do-it-Yourself" Christian theologians here admitting that they "don't care."

That being the case, and considering that neither of them has presented a case for their own preferences that accords with Christian history, let's move to another topic!

 

[Andrew]

I don't think anyone other than me, Nathan and perhaps MoreCoffee realize how widely the "Apocrypha" were used and quoted as scripture throughout all churches (according to Origen), if anyone here can prove to me how Wisdom 2 is NOT Holy Inspired and is UNWORTHY for your Bible, I would love to hear your argument.
WISDOM is practically the most quoted of books by the early church fathers, it was so bold in prophecy that the Church originaly considered it to be part of the New Testament canon, as it was written half a century before the birth of Christ and reveals in great detail the crucifixion of Christ, even the words that were uttered among the cheif priests in the NT at the crucifixion.

 

[Albion]

You lost that argument long ago, and it's time to move on. No one or several individuals defined essential doctrine for the whole of Christianity, and that means those you mentioned repeatedly in your posts. It also says nothing meaningful to point to the fact that certain parts of the Apocrypha were referred to even as they are referred to by reformed churches today. None of that makes the material be the word of God.

And to say it does is to go contrary to the position taken by the Roman Catholic Church which all of you believe to be the last word on the subject.

Maybe some time you all ought to give some thought to the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which are older than the Church of Rome, rejected and still do reject a number of the doctrinal innovations made by the Roman Catholic Church allegedly on the basis of "tradition."

 

[Andrew]

I thought the great schism divided the RCC and the EOC, regardless, both still hold "Apocrypha" books (give or take a few) as scripture, just as the first churches did.

 

[Andrew]

You lost that argument long ago, and it's time to move on. No one or several individuals defined essential doctrine for the whole of Christianity, and that means those you mentioned repeatedly in your posts. It also says nothing meaningful to point to the fact that certain parts of the Apocrypha were referred to even as they are referred to by reformed churches today. None of that makes the material be the word of God.

And to say it does is to go contrary to the position taken by the Roman Catholic Church which all of you believe to be the last word on the subject.

Maybe some time you all ought to give some thought to the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which are older than the Church of Rome, rejected and still do reject a number of the doctrinal innovations made by the Roman Catholic Church allegedly on the basis of "tradition."

God provided the corpus of Scripture for the early churches, it was not by mere happenstance either, Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint as it's primary source of Scripture.

Change my mind

 

[MoreCoffee]

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.

It is true to say that many Christians accepted them as canonical scripture and it is also true that several ancient councils listed them as canonical scripture. The canon lists of those ancient councils were affirmed by the ecumenical councils of Florence and Trent.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I thought the great schism divided the RCC and the EOC, regardless, both still hold "Apocrypha" books (give or take a few) as scripture, just as the first churches did.

Orthodox churches accept all the books regarded as canonical by the Catholic Church.

 

[Lanman87]

It is true to say that many Christians accepted them as canonical scripture

Many is not the same as all. It was Trent that firmly set the canon for the Catholic church. Tent was response to the reformation. If there had been no reformation then there would still be two "threads" within the Catholic church.

 

[NathanH83]

Many is not the same as all. It was Trent that firmly set the canon for the Catholic church. Tent was response to the reformation. If there had been no reformation then there would still be two "threads" within the Catholic church.

Trent was in response to the Reformation. But Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were NOT, due to being over 1,000 years before the Reformation. Trent merely affirmed the SAME books that Rome, Hippo, and Carthage already confirmed over a thousand years earlier.

So no, the Apocryphal books were not ADDED to the Bible AFTER the Reformation.

 

[NathanH83]

Orthodox churches accept all the books regarded as canonical by the Catholic Church.

All that and more. EOC accept 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras which Catholics don’t.

 

[Albion]

God provided the corpus of Scripture for the early churches, it was not by mere happenstance either,

Of course, but there were many uninspired religious writings being circulated both before and after Christ's lifetime. The fact that they existed and convinced some readers does not mean that any of them were Holy Scripture, the very word of God.

The church knew this well. You should, too.

 

[Andrew]

Of course, but there were many uninspired religious writings being circulated both before and after Christ's lifetime. The fact that they existed and convinced some readers does not mean that any of them were Holy Scripture, the very word of God.

The church knew this well. You should, too.

Yeah and guess what, Apocrypha books weren't allowed in the churches at all!, these did not include the books found in the LXX.
Jerome mislabeled them, the proper label would have been "Ecclesiastical Scriptures" but nope, no TRUE Apocrypha books were ever used or quoted as Scripture by no known Church fathers, with the exception of maybe the shephard of hermes... which is a NT era Apocrypha book that was not part of the LXX, but anyway that book never made it into any bible that I know of, im not sure if the EOC uses it

 

[Andrew]

All that and more. EOC accept 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras which Catholics don’t.

I would too if I were Eastern Orthodox