The message of the Prayer of Manasseh

[Albion]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]
If it's valuable and was valued by early Church fathers who wrote exegesis using quotes from many of these books, then why discourage it by promoting a "who cares" attitude?

Who did you have in mind? We obviously cannot include in that criticism people who, for example, don't consider any of the Bible books to be divinely inspired, etc. Or, for that matter, some cult or oddball denomination.

Perhaps it would prove that you Albion hold to your view that they are valuable if you were to explain specifically how it's valuable to you

It doesn't speak for all Christians, of course (the majority of whom believe that the Apocrypha is valuable), but since you put that question to me personally, here is what the Anglican churches have always said on that subject-

"And the other books...the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establishing any doctrine...."

 

[Albion]

There was no Masoretic then, only the Greek translations thus no "Apocrypha", I can't explain it any easier than that

The Jewish communities of the first century knew the Apocryphal books. Josephus refers to them. The councils of the Christian Church debated the inclusion of them at the time of canonization.

The Council of Rome (382) canonized the Greek Septuagint, including the Apocrypha.

 

[Josiah]

Read the ante nicene volumes of writings, they make it perfectly clear what books they considered scripture

Really?? Then there can only be ONE denomination on the planet that is right about this because there are not two denominations on the planet that accept the SAME "set" of books beyond the 66. So, is the RCC wrong? The EOC? The Anglican Church? Was Luther wrong? Everyone but one HAS to be wrong. Which ONE denomination has the right set of books?


I wonder about your observation..... I know ECF quoted from lots of things - sometimes NOT from books Baptists might have in the Scrofield Study Bible and sometimes from a work by St.Augustine or St. Ignatius and sometimes from some book like the Prayer of Manassah or 1 Clement.... but did they quote such "AS SCRIPTURE?" You've not documented that. And if someone did, that would be what someone did - that would not mean ergo all the Christians had the same view or that Christianity had made some binding, authoritative declaration that all embraced. If my pastor quoted Dave Ramsey in a stewardship sermon, would that be proof that ergo all 2 billion Christians hold that the works of Dave Ramsey are the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and/or the Epistle to the Romans? Obviously not. I suspect, my friend, from my very limited readings of the ECF, they quoted each other more than they quoted from the Book of Jude or Philemon Joel and certainly more than the Prayer of Manassah. I wonder if you are confusing USING a book with authoritatively DECLARING such (or just accepted as having been authoritatively declared as) the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. Christians read LOTS of stuff (always have), Christians quote LOTS of stuff (always have).


I wonder too if you are confusing books Christians use with books all Christians regard as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. There are hundreds of thousands of religious books currently being used, MANY more once used. Many of them contain accurate history and many of them contain no clear heresy. And preachers today OFTEN quote from them - even show video clips from movies and TV shows. Not evidence of any embrace of "SCRIPTURE" - the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.

You seem to imply that the church fathers had no universal sense of discernment nor could they possibly agree with each other

Irrelevant.


Which "fathers?" There is no single "set" of such.


No, in the Early Church, there were MANY, MANY voices and they OFTEN disagreed with each other. Even argued strongly with each other. TODAY, many Christians hold SOME up in esteem (although probably disagreeing with them on some points). No, unfournately, Christians have never been entirely in agreement.

The Emperor required Christians come to at least a settlement on some issues and thus they called Ecumenical Church Councils. The first began in 325 and the last (the 7th) ended around 800 AD. Here all those "Fathers" and voices where to submit their debates and the Council worked a bit like a Supreme Court...;. if a ruling was made, all were asked to abide (agree or not) OR they were to leave. These worked VERY well (well, at least the first 3 or 4) but friend these happened because Chrsitian voices DISAGREED, the leaders where NOT in agreement, even on some things that TODAY are rarely if ever questioned or debated. But friend, the written canon was never an issue at any of these, it never came up. Christians DID NOT use the "same Bible" (there was no official Bible, there was no authorized Bible - there were REGIONAL declarations of what books could be included in the lectionary but no official Bible). Yes - Christians quoted and used HUNDREDS of writings - some were found among LXX books, some were books no Christian today has ever heard of, many of them were writings of men like St.Augustine, there were MANY religious books them and MANY of them were read.

what God had entrusted them through the greek translations and they wrote about it

Who is 'they?" What is "it?"


Can you quote even just TEN Christians before the year 311 who state, "The LXX is our Scripture?" Where is your evidence that all Christians before 311 accepted all the books associated with the LXX as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans?

I have no doubt Greek and Latin speaking Christians would be more apt to quote a work in Greek or Latin than they would one written in Hebrew. But I suspect the reason for this is simple: They couldn't read Hebrew. Even the books ORIGINALLY written in Hebrew, well, they'd quote a Greek or Latin translation of it. Why? Simple, they could read Greek or Latin but not Hebrew. I suspect this has NOTHING to do with embracing all books associated with the LXX as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.




.

 

[Josiah]

The Council of Rome (382) canonized the Greek Septuagint, including the Apocrypha.

The regional synod at Rome in 382 accepted SOME (not all) SOME of the books associated with the LXX. A lot fewer than the Anglican Church did in the 16th Century. And the issue was the lectionary, NOT what is to serve as the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. The Anglican Church accepted many MORE for its authorized collection but (addressing an issue this synod in 382 did NOT), noted that some are canonical and some are DEUTEROcanonical. But neither the meeting at Rome or the Anglican Church embraced all the books associated with the LXX - for anything, in any way.

 

[Albion]

Part of the problem with any discussion of the Apocryphal books is that there are all sorts of writings called by that name but which were never included and so shouldn't be intermixed into discussions such as this one. The books that were included, but only provisionally, were carried in the Septuagint and were well known among the Jewish people, although there was disagreement among them concerning the inspired status of some or all of them.

The books that were provisionally included as part of the Old Testament by the church councils that canonized the scriptures--and only because these books were known to have been read by the early Fathers--were expelled from the Bible by the Anglican church of the 16th century but continued to be read for instruction in "morals and manners" until the British and Foreign Bible Society in the 19th century stopped including them in publications along with the Bible books. They are
The Third Book of Esdras ,
The Fourth Book of Esdras ,
The Book of Tobias ,
The Book of Judith,
The Song of the Three Children,
The Story of Susanna,
Of Bel and the Dragon,
The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Book of Wisdom,
Jesus the Son of Sirach,
Baruch the Prophet,
The Prayer of Manasses,
The First Book of Maccabees,
The Second Book of Maccabees.

The Roman Catholic Church of course continued to consider the Apocrypha to be inspired, but not all of the books that had been in the Bible before the Reformation. Some she expelled herself during the Counter-Reformation, which verifies the understanding that these books had not been included at Rome or Carthage or Hippo as absolutely inspired writings.

 

[Andrew]

The Jewish communities of the first century knew the Apocryphal books. Josephus refers to them. The councils of the Christian Church debated the inclusion of them at the time of canonization.

The Council of Rome (382) canonized the Greek Septuagint, including the Apocrypha.

The Jewish communities in the first century were up to no good, Josephus was a pharisee and he praises the Septuagint, please quote him doubting it's contents.
The term 'Apocrypha' was attributed by Jerome to what Christ rejecting Jews rejected in their revised greek translation (created by Aquila an apostate 2 century AD). This revision replaced all of the original greek canon in the synagogues as recorded in the Jewish Talmud, Jews today still mourn the original Greek translations because well, they weren't at all thrilled that God had grafted in the gentiles and that God handed over their sacred scripture to them.

So to distinguish themselves and attempt to disprove Christ they made sure that only the Torah in greek would allowed in the synagogues and not the "other books" including the prophets... whom Christ says that they killed because they would not heed their prophesies.. by the time they canonized the OT Masoretic they had made many alterations that allowed wiggle room through alternate "idioms" in prophesy that totally fall short to the context in which Jesus quoted and meant, the wording and phrasing had become open to other misinterpretations. Meanwhile they emphasised among themselves the power and authority of Hebrew only oral tradition The Talmud.. Which consider yourself lucky if you haven't heard the great blasphemies they speak of Jesus in.

Maccabees helps us understand Jesus observance of the feast of dedication and the prophesy of Daniel 11, I find it more than just "a good read" shelved next to "Silent Night" as Josiah suggests, or "damaging" according to a statement Atpollard made.

But hey guys, I'm okay with your rejection as long as you know what you are rejecting.

I have no prejudice against books that early Christians are documented to have held as 'inspired writings' when addressing major churches of the time and specifically listing them along side other OT books without distinction.
The churches must have been familiar with it for none of those writers were called Anathema by the churches for preaching false scripture

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]

Part of the problem with any discussion of the Apocryphal books is that there are all sorts of writings called by that name but which were never included and so shouldn't be intermixed into discussions such as this one.

YES!


Part of the "problem" with discussing the "beyond 66 books" is that there is (AND NEVER HAS BEEN) any agreement on WHAT books "beyond the 66." No one will say.... partly because not two denominations on planet - now or ever - agree on that. WHAT books? What ONE (singular, sole, exclusive) denomination is right and thus all the others therefore wrong?


Part of the "problem" also is tbe whole issue of accepted/included AS WHAT? Just because a tome is published with 1 or 27 or 39 or 66 or 73 or 74 or 77 or 80 or 83 books contained within the covers does not mean ERGO all Christians have authoritatively declared the 1, 27, 39, 66, 73, 80 or 83 books to be the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. There is good evidence that the Jews RANKED books.... and good evidence the Christians did too (until the 17th Century anyway). Christians appear to have had a three-tier collection: Spoken in favor canonical, spoken against canonical (both equal 66 books) and an uncertain number of DEUTEROcanonical books.


Part of the "problem" (especially for we Protestants) is that we ASSUME that the issue of what is and is not Scripture was "settled" and this happened very early. Sorry. Yes, there was a solid TRADITION, a solid CONSENSUS (with NOTHING official or formal or binding or authoritative or ecumenical) around embracing 66-73 books as "Scripture" but NOT NECESSARILY as equally canoncial (in fact, evidence is strong they did NOT embrace all as equally so). Sorry. I know that troubles a lot of Protestants who believe God send this memo from heaven in 31 AD with Calvin's list on it and everyone abided by that until some wachedoodle Catholics added a bunch of heretical books. Nope. Not true. NONE of this was official or pinned down. And CERTAINLY not a universal sense of what is and is not canonical norma normans (or even if ANY Scripture is such). As I've noted several times how, 2 things brought this issue to a head of sorts: The printing press (and with it, denominationally AUTHORIZED tomes with an AUTHORIZED table of contents) and secondly, the Reformation with the emphasis on Scripture as the canon (in fact, Protestants tended to make the two issues IDENTICAL!!!). In the 16th Century - with these two factors powerfully at work - there was an effort to PIN THIS DOWN (for the first time in history.... what the Jews did in 90AD, Christianity finally got around to doing). The RCC, the Reformed churches and the Anglican Church all officially, formally, authoritatively pin this down. Lutherans did not. But we're not united on it beyond the 66. Because there never was ONE decision on this - there were several DIFFERENT ones. And that not until the 16th Century. Sorry. Just the way it is.

They are

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

That's YOUR "they" perhaps.

The synod at Rome in 382 accepted only half of those. And it's ENTIRELY UNCLEAR what they were accepted FOR, it seems ONLY to be approved for the Lectionary. The Anglicans agree with that. Lutheran lectionaires sometimes have readings from 8 of those.

And it should be noted the LXX has MORE books than you listed. For example: Psalms of Solomon, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, the Letter of Jeremiah, Odes and more.

And it should be noted that NO Early Church Father quoted from all 66 books OR from all 7 or 8 or 14 or 15 or 18 other books. But they often DID quote from books no one today accepts as anything. such as 1 and 2 Clement. And they quoted a LOT from works from each other.

The Roman Catholic Church of course continued to consider the Apocrypha to be inspired, but not all of the books that had been in the Bible before the Reformation. Some she expelled herself during the Counter-Reformation, which verifies the understanding that these books had not been included at Rome or Carthage or Hippo as absolutely inspired writings.

Again, the 3 western regional non-authoritative synods around the year 400 didn't address what is or is not the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice.... and never mentioned many of the books you listed or books associated with the LXX or Dead Sea Scrolls. The Rome meeting in 383 mentioned some "beyond the 66" books commonly used IN THAT CITY IN THAT YEAR but it was a whole different enchilada elsewhere.




.

 

[Andrew]

Part of the problem with any discussion of the Apocryphal books is that there are all sorts of writings called by that name but which were never included and so shouldn't be intermixed into discussions such as this one. The books that were included, but only provisionally, were carried in the Septuagint and were well known among the Jewish people, although there was disagreement among them concerning the inspired status of some or all of them.

The books that were provisionally included as part of the Old Testament by the church councils that canonized the scriptures--and only because these books were known to have been read by the early Fathers--were expelled from the Bible by the Anglican church of the 16th century but continued to be read for instruction in "morals and manners" until the British and Foreign Bible Society in the 19th century stopped including them in publications along with the Bible books. They are
The Third Book of Esdras ,
The Fourth Book of Esdras ,
The Book of Tobias ,
The Book of Judith,
The Song of the Three Children,
The Story of Susanna,
Of Bel and the Dragon,
The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Book of Wisdom,
Jesus the Son of Sirach,
Baruch the Prophet,
The Prayer of Manasses,
The First Book of Maccabees,
The Second Book of Maccabees.

The Roman Catholic Church of course continued to consider the Apocrypha to be inspired, but not all of the books that had been in the Bible before the Reformation. Some she expelled herself during the Counter-Reformation, which verifies the understanding that these books had not been included at Rome or Carthage or Hippo as absolutely inspired writings.

Jerome Jerome Jerome...

Plus most of the books you mentioned are just parts of other books, they were separated into books because Jerome did not find them in the Hebrew text and placed them elsewhere in a special designated area for "hmmmm now im not so sure" books and then over time that special area where these books were located just vanished from the KJV, I'd say roughly around 1769

 

[Albion]

Jerome Jerome Jerome...

Plus most of the books you mentioned are just parts of other books, they were separated into books because Jerome did not find them in the Hebrew text and placed them elsewhere in a special designated area for "hmmmm now im not so sure" books and then over time that special area where these books were located just vanished from the KJV, I'd say roughly around 1769

Remember that they never were part of the KJV. Anyway, I don't know what the argument is about. The Apocryphal books were always questionable and, in the end, just about everyone -- Catholic or Protestant -- treated them as such. This does not, however, mean that they are verboten, banished from the bookshelf, totally worthless, or anything of the sort. What are we arguing about anyway?

 

[Andrew]

YES!


Part of the "problem" with discussing the "beyond 66 books" is that there is (AND NEVER HAS BEEN) any agreement on WHAT books "beyond the 66." No one will say.... partly because not two denominations on planet - now or ever - agree on that. WHAT books? What ONE (singular, sole, exclusive) denomination is right and thus all the other wrong?


Part of the "problem" also is tbe whole issue of accepted/included AS WHAT? Just because a book is published with 1 or 27 or 39 or 66 or 73 or 74 or 77 or 80 or 83 books contained within the covers does not mean ERGO all Christians have authoritatively declared the 1, 27, 39, 66, 73, 80 or 83 books to be the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. There is good evidence that the Jews RANKED books.... and good evidence the Christians did too (until the 17th Century anyway). Christians appear to have had a three-tier collection: Spoken in favor canonical, spoken against canonical (both equal 66 books) and an uncertain number of DEUTEROcanonical books.


Part of the "problem" (especially for we Protestants) is that we ASSUME that the issue of what is and is not Scripture was "settled." Sorry. Yes, there was a solid TRADITION, a solid CONSENSUS (with NOTHING official or formal or binding or authoritative or ecumenical) around embracing 66-73 books as "Scripture" but NOT NECESSARILY as equally canoncial (in fact, evidence is strong they did NOT embrace all as equally so). Sorry. I know that troubles a lot of Protestants who believe God send this memo from heaven with Calvin's list on it and He did this in 31 AD and everyone abided by that until some wachedoodle Catholics added a bunch of heretical books. Nope. Not true. NONE of this was official or pinned down. And CERTAINLY not a universal sense of what is and is not canonical norma normans (or even if ANY Scripture is such). As I've noted several times how, 2 things brought this issue to a head of sorts: The printing press (and with it, denominationally AUTHORIZED tomes with an AUTHORIZED table of contents) and secondly, the Reformation with the emphasis on Scripture as the canon (in fact, Protestants tended to make the two issues IDENTICAL!!!). In the 16th Century - with these two factors powerfully at work - there was an effort to PIN THIS DOWN (for the first time in history.... what the Jews did in 90AD, Christianity finally got around to doing). The RCC, the Reformed churches and the Anglican Church all officially, formally, authoritatively pin this down. Lutherans did not. Only since the Reformation has this whole issue been an issue. But we're not united on it beyond the 66. Because there never was ONE decision on this - there were several DIFFERENT ones. And that not until the 16th Century. Sorry. Just the way it is.








That's YOUR "they" perhaps.

The synod at Rome in 382 accepted only half of those. And it's ENTIRELY UNCLEAR what they were accepted FOR, it seems ONLY to be approved for the Lectionary. The Anglicans agree with that. Lutheran lectionaires sometimes have readings from 8 of those.

And it should be noted the LXX has MORE books than you listed. For example: Psalms of Solomon, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, the Letter of Jeremiah, Odes and more.

And it should be noted that NO Early Church Father quoted from all 66 books OR from all 7 or 8 or 14 or 15 or 18 other books. But they often DID quote from books no one today accepts as anything. such as 1 and 2 Clement. And they quoted a LOT from works from each other.







Again, the 3 western regional non-authoritative synods around the year 400 didn't address what is or is not the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice.... and never mentioned many of the books you listed or books associated with the LXX or Dead Sea Scrolls. The Rome meeting in 383 mentioned some "beyond the 66" books commonly used IN THAT CITY IN THAT YEAR but it was a whole different enchilada elsewhere.

What was the enchilada in the time of the church's infancy in a majority greek speaking world? I believe the divine Sovereignty of the Lord God almighty gave the greek speaking world their enchilada just in the knick of time of Christ's arrival.
Where would ANY OT canon stand without the greek translation? Christians would be asking Jews for a copy of their Hebrew lol fat chance of that happening, Jerome made that mistake though and it created nothing but animosity toward anyway who takes these books seriously.
Jasher and Jubilees and so on were never included in the greek nor was Enoch for that matter, and even the Septuagint we have today isn't perfect, but how can we truly judge the God given greek translation of the Hebrew and its contents? We at least have a firm documentation of what was included in the translations.. why shake your head in disapproval to what early Christians held as God inspired just because they never uttered the words "OT canon"?.
These were are early martyrs for crying out loud!
Please keep your 66 books as your canon because in the end its the GOSPEL of the NT that truly matters, I don't need the existence of the book of Jonah to convince me that Christ Jesus is Lord and King of Kings who was dead three days but is alive forever more. Jesus also quoted the book of Enoch, a book which is said to exist (even I own) but is 100% questionable because it was not included in the greek translation.. Yet Jesus had to have read it.. mystery indeed so be it..

 

[Josiah]

Part of the "problem" with discussing the "beyond 66 books" is that there is (AND NEVER HAS BEEN) any agreement on WHAT books "beyond the 66." No one will say.... partly because not two denominations on planet - now or ever - agree on that. WHAT books? What ONE (singular, sole, exclusive) denomination is right and thus all the others therefore wrong?


Part of the "problem" also is tbe whole issue of accepted/included AS WHAT? Just because a tome is published with 1 or 27 or 39 or 66 or 73 or 74 or 77 or 80 or 83 books contained within the covers does not mean ERGO all Christians have authoritatively declared the 1, 27, 39, 66, 73, 80 or 83 books to be the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. There is good evidence that the Jews RANKED books.... and good evidence the Christians did too (until the 17th Century anyway). Christians appear to have had a three-tier collection: Spoken in favor canonical, spoken against canonical (both equal 66 books) and an uncertain number of DEUTEROcanonical books.


Part of the "problem" (especially for we Protestants) is that we ASSUME that the issue of what is and is not Scripture was "settled" and this happened very early. Sorry. Yes, there was a solid TRADITION, a solid CONSENSUS (with NOTHING official or formal or binding or authoritative or ecumenical) around embracing 66-73 books as "Scripture" but NOT NECESSARILY as equally canoncial (in fact, evidence is strong they did NOT embrace all as equally so). Sorry. I know that troubles a lot of Protestants who believe God send this memo from heaven in 31 AD with Calvin's list on it and everyone abided by that until some wachedoodle Catholics added a bunch of heretical books. Nope. Not true. NONE of this was official or pinned down. And CERTAINLY not a universal sense of what is and is not canonical norma normans (or even if ANY Scripture is such). As I've noted several times how, 2 things brought this issue to a head of sorts: The printing press (and with it, denominationally AUTHORIZED tomes with an AUTHORIZED table of contents) and secondly, the Reformation with the emphasis on Scripture as the canon (in fact, Protestants tended to make the two issues IDENTICAL!!!). In the 16th Century - with these two factors powerfully at work - there was an effort to PIN THIS DOWN (for the first time in history.... what the Jews did in 90AD, Christianity finally got around to doing). The RCC, the Reformed churches and the Anglican Church all officially, formally, authoritatively pin this down. Lutherans did not. But we're not united on it beyond the 66. Because there never was ONE decision on this - there were several DIFFERENT ones. And that not until the 16th Century. Sorry. Just the way it is.



.

Remember that they never were part of the KJV. Anyway, I don't know what the argument is about. The Apocryphal books were always questionable and, in the end, just about everyone -- Catholic or Protestant -- treated them as such. This does not, however, mean that they are verboten, banished from the bookshelf, totally worthless, or anything of the sort. What are we arguing about anyway?

I've never been able to determine what a couple of our friends are driving at.... or why.... but I suspect it actually has NOTHING TO DO with numbering books.


You're absolutely right. WHATEVER "set" of "beyond the 66" someone is working with (and no two denominations agree on that - and never have) these books were not used canonically until the 16th Century when the RC denomination chose to do so embracing Luther's rubric but quoting 2 Maccabees. Prior to that, "these books" (whatever "these" are) were at times read (informally and also in the lectionary), considered useful for information and inspiration, but there is no indication that any denomination was addressing the issue of whether they are canonical Scripture. See the 3 points above.


From the first century on, there have been LOTS and LOTS of Christian books floating around.... read, quoted, used... most of them quite regionally but a few quite universally.... SOME of these are now in our "27" but the great majority are not. The question is NOT "what books existed.... what books did some Christians read?" The question is "what books were universally, officially, embraced as CANON, as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice? I know this disturbs a lot of Protestants, but the historic reality is: That question was never officially addressed until the Reformation. There was no memo falling down from Heaven in 31 AD with Calvin's list on it. And by the time different denominations DID address that issue, no two agreed on it. Sorry, just the way it is.


Does it matter? Well..... is there any doctrine (or even widely embraced practice) that ANY book beyond the 66 depends? No. No denomination (not even the RCC on Purgatory) states that. Can you learn some good stuff from "these?" Yeah, but also from perhaps 100,000 other Christian books, too. IF you buy a Calvinist edition of the KJV, is there some dogma or critical Christian practice or morality you'd be ignored of? Nope. and probably be okay, but my point is: There isn't anything essential in these books. AND IT MAY WELL BE THAT'S WHY NO BODY CARED. There was NO CONSENSUS on these "beyond 66" books for 1500+ years..... the RCC disagreed with the EOC which disagreed with the OOC, indeed, no one agreed with anyone on them. AND N0 ONE CARED. No one used them for much of anything. Now, I agree - that's also true for a goodly number of the 66, but then there was a solid tradition of embracing those. I was once Catholic...... I occasionally heard a lectionary reading from one of that denomination's UNIQUE set of SEVEN.... but that's it. Not one sermon or study. Don't even remember it quoted in any sermon or lesson. Ironically, it wasn't until I became Lutheran that I learned about these and participated in a study of each of the EIGHT that Luther personally included in his translation. Church Councils happen when there is some DISAGREEMENT that MATTERS. There was no Council that included the issue of "beyond the 66" because, I suspect, no one thought this disagreement mattered.



LOOK...... Instead of celebrating the PROFOUNDLY solid and ancient and ecumenical consensus around 66 (one of the strongest agreements we have in Christianity) some seem obsessed over some unknown "set" of other books (among the millions of Christian books out there). And the WHY is never really clear. IMO, some Christians (both Catholic and Protestants) want to believe a falsehood: That God sent this memo to everyone in 31 AD with a list of books on it - Protestants say it had Calvin's 66 books on it and Catholics that it had Trent's 73 books on it. In truth, BOTH of those "memos" were denominational decisions of the 16th Century. Catholics bring this up to prove Calvin ripped a bunch of books out of the Bible (ones Catholics don't care about) and Protestants to prove that the RCC put in a bunch of heretical books to prove their inventions correct. They're both wrong. See the 3 points above.





.

 

[Andrew]

Remember that they never were part of the KJV. Anyway, I don't know what the argument is about. The Apocryphal books were always questionable and, in the end, just about everyone -- Catholic or Protestant -- treated them as such. This does not, however, mean that they are verboten, banished from the bookshelf, totally worthless, or anything of the sort. What are we arguing about anyway?

I'm arguing that they are considered taboo now and unjustly so, the Jews convinced Jerome that some books are not in their canon thus he labeled them apocrypha and segregated them in his Latin translations, even the Pope was against his decision, but as long as it remained in the bible it would still be..well..in the bible! But then that whole section was trashed entirely and no one cares to read them, they are not worthy to take up space in the bible as they once were, it's a clever way to seem supportive of those who value it as inspired but deep down you "KNOW" its not practical for anyone to consider any of these books as divine or inspired.. Why not declare them heretical since they false witness to angels and conversations with God? Isn't it blasphemous to claim God or an angel did such and such if it wasn't truly divine? Then why not come right out and declare it evil and as blasphemous as the Quran or the book of Mormon?

Just saying, I wouldn't hold that over the heads of our early martyrs for Christ who were obviously 100% aware and well versed in these "hmmm now im not so sure" books

 

[Josiah]

I'm arguing that they are considered taboo now

What is "they?" WHO are these who consider "them" taboo?


You have done nothing to substantiate this. If this were so, why do perhaps 90% of Christians have "them" in their biblical tome? Why are "they" included in the lectionary of maybe 90% of the world's Christians? Anglicans include readings from "them" in their Lectionary and their AV had "them" included. Many Lutheran lectionaries include "them" and Luther's translation had "them" included. Lutherans and Anglicans together are about half of the world's protestants.


I don't recall any pastor or Bible teacher telling me to not read ANY book. Some denominations had banned books centuries ago, but does any now? Could you list for us the denominations that forbid persons from any some book not among "the 66?"


What dogma you embrace or what Christian morality or practice you hold precious would disappear is some book beyond the 66 were not included in a tome you own that has "BIBLE" written on the front cover? Why must Odes and the Letter of Jeremiah be embraced in order for your faith and practice to stand, what do they teach that no other book does and is Dogma for you? What dogma depends on those books being regarded as the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice - and is found nowhere else?




LOOK...... Instead of celebrating the PROFOUNDLY solid and ancient and ecumenical consensus around 66 (one of the strongest agreements we have in Christianity) some seem obsessed over some unknown "set" of other books (among the millions of Christian books out there). And the WHY is never really clear. IMO, some Christians (both Catholic and Protestants) want to believe a falsehood: That God sent this memo to everyone in 31 AD with a list of books on it - Protestants say it had Calvin's 66 books on it and Catholics that it had Trent's 73 books on it. In truth, BOTH of those "memos" were denominational decisions of the 16th Century. Catholics bring this up to prove Calvin ripped a bunch of books out of the Bible (ironically, ones Catholics don't care about) and Protestants to prove that the RCC put in a bunch of heretical books to prove Catholic inventions correct. They're both wrong.


.

 

[Albion]

I'm arguing that they are considered taboo now and unjustly so,...

"Taboo"... by whom. Since almost everything Christians believe is flatly rejected by someone or other, this seems to me important to establish if we are going to continue going down this road. We already know that the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and some others do NOT consider the Apocrypha to be "taboo." So that leaves a minority that includes people and denominations that believe the wildest array of beliefs.

So, once again, is this a meaningful discussion? It seems to be presented as though it is, but why?

and no one cares to read them

What evidence is there of that claim?

 

[Andrew]

So you two are okay with discussing exegesis on books of the apocrypha?
I mean there is no "apocrypha canon" hence the dilemma, so would you two consider exegesis on i.e. the "Prayer of Manasseh" without complete prejudice or former denominational bias?

Would you actually join in the conversation approaching it's exegesis or ignore it because you don't believe it's important enough?

Seriously asking because I would like to discuss some of these books in the most simplistic care free manner, if it's not "damaging" or harmful to Gospel (which btw is impossible) then what's to stop you?
If early Christians had no anxieties over "unpopular" books and mention them over and over again without having to dodge any stones ... then what's the harm of discussing them?

I personally see a growing interest in these books among many new sects such as Black Hebrew Israelites and (thank God) an equal rise of Apologetics concerning the proper exegesis of these books are increasing to counter it

 

[Josiah]

"Taboo"... by whom. Since almost everything Christians believe is flatly rejected by someone or other, this seems to me important to establish if we are going to continue going down this road. We already know that the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and some others do NOT consider the Apocrypha to be "taboo." So that leaves a minority that includes people and denominations that believe the wildest array of beliefs.

Well....and I see nothing that supports that even that small minority of Christians consider any "other than the 66" books to be "TABOO." It seems to me, denominations stopped banning books centuries ago. And I know of NONE that EVER banned any book that anyone labels as "Apocrypha." Calvin's Bible made no mention of them but nowhere in the Reformed Confessions or in the history of Reformed churches do I know of any ban on reading them.



And.... not to address this thread in particular.... I've OFTEN encountered rants from Christians (Catholic and Protestants) against "them" or "those" or just generic "Protestants" that actually is about Calvinism. Especially in the USA, there are Christians who don't seem to know that Calvinism is a small subset of Protestantism. That may not be so in Oklahoma but it is in the world. The point about "'they' considers 'those' books to be TABOO" would make ever-so-slightly more sense if the "they" was replaced by "Christians from a Reformed tradition" (and if "those" titles were listed and if "taboo" was defined).

What evidence is there of that claim?

No evidence was presented for anything at all.



I HOPE something was learned in spite of .... well......

.

 

[Andrew]

What evidence is there of that claim?

You literally said "and who cares?"

 

[Albion]

Why not declare them heretical since they false witness to angels and conversations with God?

What's heretical about any of that?

Isn't it blasphemous to claim God or an angel did such and such if it wasn't truly divine?

No.

 

[Albion]

You literally said "and who cares?"

I personally see a growing interest in these books among many new sects such as Black Hebrew Israelites

Mine was a comment. It's an expression, not a question to be answered.

But if the beliefs of the "Black Hebrew Israelites" appeal to you, you're entitled to it. I don't know enough about them or what exactly it is that they think of the Apocrypha to speak to it further.

 

[atpollard]

“O Lord, Almighty God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed“

• [Exodus 3:15 NASB] God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.
• [Psa 1:5 NASB] 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
• [Psa 14:5 NASB] 5 There they are in great dread, For God is with the righteous generation.
• [Psa 32:11 NASB] 11 Be glad in the LORD and rejoice, you righteous ones; And shout for joy, all you who are upright in heart.

First part appears to be confirmed by scripture. There is some question whether “their righteous seed” is the same as an “assembly” of the righteous or a righteous “generation” or righteous “ones”, but both the Prayer of Manasseh and Scripture refer to a plurality of righteous people collectively.