The Apocrypha: Does it belong in the Bible?

[NathanH83]

I say it should be in the Bible between the Old and New Testaments. Right where Luther put them when he translated the Bible into German.

I would be ok with that. Just so that it gets in to people's hands and they read it.

 

[Arsenios]

Ah.

A totally unique list.

The RCC disagrees with it.

The Anglican Church disagrees with it.

In fact, none but your one singular denomination agrees with that list.

What about 4 Maccabees accepted by the Georgian Orthodox Church?

What about Psalm 152?

Was something missing in the list?

I know Psalm 151...

Can you give us 152?


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Thanks. I also prefer a complete Bible.

Could you list the books that make for a "complete Bible?" Do you have a complete Bible? Or does Arsenios or MoreCoffee or Martin Luther or the Syrian Orthodox? I'm not being a pest, I just find this topic always seems to dodge the entire issue of the WHAT.


My own personal view is quite similar to that of Martin Luther and the Thirty-Nine Articles... even though I have no clue what books are or are not "The Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonical." So maybe the pov is largely moot?

 

[Josiah]

Was something missing in the list?


Arsenios

Well, missing or added..... you did give the Eastern Orthodox list, the list that no other church agrees with. It's fine to share what your singular denomination opinions on this topic (I'm thankful that you did) but I'm not sure it answers the question, it just gives one of MANY opinions - every one of them different.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I would be ok with that. Just so that it gets in to people's hands and they read it.

Concordia Publishing House put out a very nice edition of the Apocrypha with study materials. I was really hoping they would include it between the Old and New Testaments when they published the Lutheran Study Bible, but sadly they didn't.

https://www.cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx

 

[Arsenios]

Could you list the books that make for a "complete Bible?" Do you have a complete Bible? Or does Arsenios or MoreCoffee or Martin Luther or the Syrian Orthodox? I'm not being a pest, I just find this topic always seems to dodge the entire issue of the WHAT.


My own personal view is quite similar to that of Martin Luther and the Thirty-Nine Articles... even though I have no clue what books are or are not "The Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonical." So maybe the pov is largely moot?

Why is it so necessary to call them uncanonical and uninspired...?

And stridently proclaim the vast superiority of other texts?

It was the 4th Century Church that canonized these texts...

And it was that same Church that designated them as the "Secondary Canon"...

Orthodox tend toward maximizing the written Canon of the Faith of Christ...

Others seem sometimes intent on minimizing that Canon...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Well, missing or added..... you did give the Eastern Orthodox list, the list that no other church agrees with. It's fine to share what your singular denomination opinions on this topic (I'm thankful that you did) but I'm not sure it answers the question, it just gives one of MANY opinions - every one of them different.

Here is the kicker - They form the EOC Secondary Canon of Scripture...

If you want to add to them, or subtract from them, you need a reason...

They were included in the 4th century Ecumenical establishment of the Canon of Scripture...

Different Churches not in Communion, and perhaps those in Communion, might add to or exclude some for some reason...

What I don't trust is this strident rejection of them as unworthy and false and to be scorned...

By accusation of being uninspired by God...

God inspires a lot of writing...

Most of it not Scripture!

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

They form the EOC Secondary Canon of Scripture...

My point. The EOC has a UNIQUE "set" of books that no other agrees with. What YOU refer to is different than what any non-EOC refers to here.

Thus my question, WHICH "apocrypha?" There is no agreement on this. Never has been. Still isn't.

If you want to add to them, or subtract from them, you need a reason...

Yet the EOC has MORE than some churches (including several "Apostolic" ones) and LESS than others....so it could be said the EOC both added and subtracted books. I'm sure it has a reason, "Cuz we did."

 

[Albion]

Next, why would anything BUT divine scripture be "ordered" to be read?
They might not be as outstanding other books in the bible but that doesn't mean that they are of no value, the wisdom books are similar to proverbs, bel and the dragon is message to the assembly concerning deceptions of false priest and idolatry.

You are on the right track there, except that it does not follow that the Apocryphal books must be trashed simply because they are not considered to be inspired writings. You ask why anything but divine scripture should be read (in the churches). One famous answer is included in the Anglican Articles of Religion and I will quote it for you:

And the other Books 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 Apocryphal books are then named]


One of the most prominent prayers found in the order for Morning Prayer in Anglican churches is the canticle ‘Benedicite, omnia opera’ which comes from the Song of the Three Children, an Apocryphal writing.

.

 

[RichWh1]

I think the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. Other people say that it's doesn't. What do you say?

Jesus never quoted from any books in the Apocrypha so chances are that they were not part of the original Hebrew Canon.
None of the apostles used them either and they did quote the Old Testament.
They have historical value and tell us what the later Jews experienced. The Books of Maccabees tells the history of the family of Judas Maccabee.
So while the Apocrypha might have good historical value, it is not necessarily part of the Scriptures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Why is it so necessary to call them uncanonical and uninspired...?

Because it matters whether a book is the word of God, divine revelation...or just inspirational stories from some ordinary man? ?

Seems like an important difference to me.

 

[Josiah]

It was the 4th Century Church that canonized these texts...

... you mean the totally UNIQUE Deuterocanonical books that YOUR individual denomination accepts. But NONE agrees with your denomination on this. And never has - not in the 4th Century, not now.

Others seem sometimes intent on minimizing that Canon...

Is that why your list is much shorter than some? Because your church is intent on minimizing the Canon?




.

 

[Andrew]

Jesus never quoted from any books in the Apocrypha so chances are that they were not part of the original Hebrew Canon.
None of the apostles used them either and they did quote the Old Testament.
They have historical value and tell us what the later Jews experienced. The Books of Maccabees tells the history of the family of Judas Maccabee.
So while the Apocrypha might have good historical value, it is not necessarily part of the Scriptures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The first Christians DID have this in their canon, Josephus even mentions them and so do the early Church fathers, it was dropped by jewish scribes later but when the masoretic text came out all of a sudden they were gone when they were clearly in the Septuagint before which were translated from the early original hebrew text, meaning that Jesus and the Apostles most likely read them as well.

 

[Andrew]

You are on the right track there, except that it does not follow that the Apocryphal books must be trashed simply because they are not considered to be inspired writings. You ask why anything but divine scripture should be read (in the churches). One famous answer is included in the Anglican Articles of Religion and I will quote it for you:

And the other Books 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 Apocryphal books are then named]


One of the most prominent prayers found in the order for Morning Prayer in Anglican churches is the canticle ‘Benedicite, omnia opera’ which comes from the Song of the Three Children, an Apocryphal writing.

.

So these books that were "ordered" to be read contained conversations with God, why would they allow blasphemy to be ordered if it weren't divine?
The reason you and others here dont care for them is because the jews didn't care for them and through the masoretic text they omitted them....it's a fact that early Christian writings mention them, for example Tertullian wrote an apologetic (An Answer to the Jews) on works on the sabbath where he mentions Joshua and the israelites marching for battle on the sabbath and later he writes "in the time of the Maccabees, they bravely fought on the sabbath and they rounded their foreign enemies", Clement of Rome to the church of Corinth (where Paul had taught) quotes from the Wisdom of Solomon and later writes "many women also being strengthen by the grace of God have preformed numerous manly exploits, the blessed Judith, when her city was besieged asked the elders for their permission to go forth to the camp of the strangers and the Lord delivered a hollow furnace into the hands of a woman, Ester also being perfect in faith exposed herself to no less danger in order to deliver israel from impending destruction", this was to the largest church in Rome and the largest church in the world at that time, we know from Pauls epistle that the church of rome was a faithful church in the days of the Apostles, these members recognised these books mentioned (Apocrypha)... These were not books that the Catholic church added to the scriptures obviously. Other letters from church fathers to the churches prior to the council of Nicea quote the Apocrypha at least 350 to about 400 times according to historical records
What this means is that early Christian writers accepted these book as scripture, the Septuagint was their OT and the pharisee Josephus even praised the Septuagint text in "antiquity of the Jews".. Church leaders prior to Constantine had no problem referencing these books as canon and actually spoke more on them for historical and biblical doctrine than any of the books included in the protestant canon.
[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] When concerning the "extras" that were part of the original KJV called the "Apocrypha", these were parts of the books of Jeremiah, Daniel and Ester that were omitted from the Masoretic Text from which protestants and Catholic OT text have been translated and rather than deleting the additional material the protestants made the material into separate books, baruach = part of the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint, story of Susannah = part of the book of Daniel in the Septuagint, these were included as such in the early KJV but were not part of the 8 "additional" books of the Septuagint, thus why the KJV contains 14 more books than the 8 "Apocryphal" books in the Septuagint, so roughly 22 Apocryphal books in all should have never been ripped out of scripture and de-canonised.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] When concerning the "extras" that were part of the original KJV called the "Apocrypha", these were parts of the books of Jeremiah, Daniel and Ester that were omitted from the Masoretic Text from which protestants and Catholic OT text have been translated and rather than deleting the additional material the protestants made the material into separate books, baruach = part of the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint, story of Susannah = part of the book of Daniel in the Septuagint, these were included as such in the early KJV but were not part of the 8 "additional" books of the Septuagint, thus why the KJV contains 14 more books than the 8 "Apocryphal" books in the Septuagint, so roughly 22 Apocryphal books in all should have never been ripped out of scripture and de-canonised.

Thank you.


The point I made (that you seem to be responding to) is that there is not only not an ecumenical understanding as to the status of these books, but there is no ecumenical embrace of what "these" books even are. In reality, the churches at embrace these IN SOME FASHION don't agree on WHAT BOOKS we're talking about; each of these churches has a UNIQUE "set" of them. Anglicans are talking one unique set.... post-Trent Catholics another..... Greek Orthodox another.... if Lutherans weigh in with those Luther included in his translation, that's yet another set, and so on. There are two issues here: WHAT books? WHAT is their status, use, function?





.

 

[Albion]

What about 2nd Esdras? It seems to refer directly to the Septuagint yet 2nd Esdras is not included in the Septuagint yet again protestants and non protestants at the time and even now (RCC AND EOC) include it as Apocryphal.. here's where it gets interesting..

"Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people." (2 Esdras 14:45–46 RSV; 4 Ezra 12:45–46)

Within the 4th Esdras (2nd Esdras) there is a bold prophesy that probably would leave even these "wise Jews" scratching their head...

But none of this makes the Apocryphal books be inspired writings. Certainly they can refer to the OT books or the history or customs of the Hebrew people and have similarities to some of the OT books in that way, but none of this makes them divine revelation as opposed to religious commentaries from religious leaders of the era.

For sure, if the Jews themselves were not in agreement about them, and the Christians were not in agreement about them, and their contents are substantially unlike the rest of the Bible, and they don't instruct us in doctrine...

there is good reason not to consider them to be part of the Bible, even if we don't consider them worthless (which we don't).

 

[Arsenios]

"Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first,
and let the worthy and the unworthy read them;
but keep the seventy that were written last,
in order to give them to the wise among your people."
(2 Esdras 14:45–46 RSV; 4 Ezra 12:45–46)

This instruction has remarkable parallels to the two phases of our Divine Liturgy...

The first being for all including those being prepared for Baptism...

The second being only for those about to receive Holy Communion...

The teaching being that one who has not been prepared to received Holy Communion by Baptism is not permitted to participate in the Service of its Consecration...

Similarly, the Synoptics are read in Services throughout the year, but the Gospel of John only immediately after the Baptisms at Pascha...

The Illumination of Baptism is seen as essential to understanding John's Gospel...

Not necessarily sufficient, mind you, but necessary...

It seems that for some, like me, nothing is sufficient!


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

But none of this makes the Apocryphal books be inspired writings.

anagignoskomena simply means recognized...

I liked Andrew's understanding that arguing against them proceeds from their omission by the non-Christian Jews in their Masoretic OT books from the much more ancient and very 'received' Septuagint...

I mean, IF they are included in the pre-Christian Septuagint, the "Bible of the Apostles and Jesus", then why would Christians abandon them because of what non-Christian Jews are doing a thousand years after Christ?

And [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] - The fact that you can find discrepancies of inclusion, exclusion, nomenclature and understandings does not exclude the inclusion of what the post-Christ non-Christian Jews REVISED the pre-Christian Jewish Septuagint to be... I mean, if you want the original, the Septuagint is the Standard, and not the un-Christian re-wriiting of it by the Masoretes... This whole idea of rushing to learn Hebrew to study the "ORIGINAL" Old Testament text is just patently false on its face...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

I mean, IF they are included in the pre-Christian Septuagint, the "Bible of the Apostles and Jesus", then why would Christians abandon them because of what non-Christian Jews are doing a thousand years after Christ?

It's NOT simply a matter of Jews doing something a thousand years after Christ. During the Apostolic and Ancient church era, before the Bible was canonized, the Jews were already divided with those living in the Holy Land taking one position on the status of these books and the Jews in the diaspora taking the opposite view.

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...t-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm

 

[Arsenios]

Thank you.


The point I made (that you seem to be responding to) is that there is not only not an ecumenical understanding as to the status of these books, but there is no ecumenical embrace of what "these" books even are. In reality, the churches at embrace these IN SOME FASHION don't agree on WHAT BOOKS we're talking about; each of these churches has a UNIQUE "set" of them. Anglicans are talking one unique set.... post-Trent Catholics another..... Greek Orthodox another.... if Lutherans weigh in with those Luther included in his translation, that's yet another set, and so on. There are two issues here: WHAT books? WHAT is their status, use, function?

Most of the Old Testament books of the Protestant Apocrypha are called deuterocanonical by Catholics per the Council of Trent,
and all of them are called anagignoskomena by the Eastern Orthodox per the Synod of Jerusalem.
The Anglican Communion accepts "the Apocrypha for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine",
and many "lectionary readings in The Book of Common Prayer are taken from the Apocrypha",
with these lessons being "read in the same ways as those from the Old Testament".
The Protestant Apocrypha contains three books (3 Esdras, 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh)
that are accepted by many Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches as canonical,
but are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church
and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles.

Various books that were never canonized by any church, but are known to have existed in antiquity,
are similar to the New Testament and often claim apostolic authorship,
are known as the New Testament apocrypha.

Some of these writings have been cited as scripture by early Christians,
but since the fifth century a widespread consensus has emerged
limiting the New Testament to the 27 books of the modern canon.
Thus Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches generally
do not view these New Testament apocrypha as part of the Bible.

This is from Wikipedia, with the usual cautions...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons#Apocrypha


Arsenios