What is the main reason why the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?

[Andrew]

It seems your point is we should not "drop" from the list of canonical books if they were once regarded highly by some; if someone thought it "holy" (to use your word on this). Well, I simply pointed out that you do that. EVERYONE does. There were once a number of books that were "in" the NT in terms of functionality that NO ONE TODAY accepts and is ABSENT in every biblical tome in existence. 1 and 2 Clement were likely IN more tomes for centuries than was the Revelation of John but today.....

And you seem to be saying that if a book was part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then then should be in our OT. But there were MANY books among the Dead Sea Scrolls that aren't in ANY biblical tome - Jewish or Christian, ancient or modern. Again, your premise seems to be one you yourself reject.







I regard this as irrelevant to this thread. He had exactly the SAME number of books in his personal German translation of the typical German tome than Catholics have today - he didn't include the Epistle to the Leodiceans but did include the Prayer of Manassah.


See post 131. It was universally accepted in the time of Luther (and for 1500 years before that) that not all books share the same status. This was true among Jews as well (still is!). The NT collection came to 27 books by the end of the 4th century, it IS possible to document they were seen as canonical (the rule, the norma normans for faith and practice) BUT they were not seen on the same level. There were some OF THE TWENTY-SEVEN that were "spoken in favor" (the 4 Gospels, Acts, the Letters of Paul, First Peter, First John) and there were some OF THE TWENTY-SEVEN "Spoken Against" based on how early and strong the embrace/acceptance (examples: James, Jude, 2 Peter, Revelation). EARLY when Luther misunderstood James, he simply did what everyone did - he submitted something from a "spoken against" book to something in a "spoken in favor" book - he subjected James to Romans. James (and Revelation) had a LONG, LONG tradition of being questioned and Luther expressed that early on. Luther (like Calvin) never abandoned this ancient distinction within the 27 but as I noted, Christianity has (for the reasons I expressed earlier). But you missed the point: Luther INCLUDED James and Revelation and 2 Peter and Jude in his personal German Translation.

I didn't speak of books IN the 27..... I spoke of books many (in some cases, nearly all) Christians used for CENTURIES that aren't in your 27 (or anyone's NT) today. They ONCE were "in" but aren't now. If we abide by your rubric of "if someone accepted it and thought of it as holy, we must do so today) is not something you are anyone else actually does. Or you would be campaigning for 1 & 2 Clement and SEVERAL other books. AND you might be compaigning to remove the Revelation of John which did NOT appear in many early tomes (the East didn't even include it in their lectionary until very recently).








... has nothing to do with this, my friend, The issue is why some books (out of well over 100 candidates) ARE universally accepted as the inerrant, verbally inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and ERGO the rule/canon/norma normans for faith and practice and why some are not; and especially, why are some accepted as MORE SO than others, why some are canonical and some DEUTEROcanonical.







You've not attempted to show that all Christians in the first 3 or 4 Centuries had "X" number of books that they regarded as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norma normans for faith and practice. You haven't even told us what number "X" is and have not even attempted to list this. You've not shown that NO OTHER BOOK was ever quoted from or used or read or was found in Lectionaries.







No. He shared the nearly universal opinion of his day that the DEUTERcanonical books..... EIGHT APOCRYPHA books..... THOSE 8 books..... are to be read, studied, used and may be used in lectionaries and sermon texts etc. but are not canonical but DEUTEROcanonical. It was his opinion. It was pretty much everyone's opinion. The Anglican Church made it dogma in the late 16th Century (Lutherans have never done ANYTHING with this view). Luther lived in a day when Biblical tomes had 3 levels: Spoken in favor canonical , spoken against canonical, and DEUTEROcanonical. Catholic tomes often had 28 books (the Epistle to the Leodiceans being regarded as spoken in favor canonical) and 8 DEUTEROcanonical. Trent dropped two of these - The Epistle to the Leodiceans and the Prayer of Manassah, but then there never was just one Catholic tome until well after Trent.







Lutherans have never done ANYTHING official with his personal opinion on those 8 books, read the Lutheran Confessions, they are PURPOSELY SILENT on this whole issue. SOME of the 300+ Lutheran denominations have affirmed 66 books (sometimes by name) but have been SILENT about the 7 or 8 or 10 or 13 or 14 or 15 or however many "them" you want to talk about.

But Luther's tome became universally used by Lutherans until the 20th Century. It was translated into every language Lutherans used (even many third-world languages as Lutheran missionaries took his tome with them to foreign countries). American Lutherans use his tome - translated into Swedish, Danish, Icelantic, English and more. And it ALWAYS included those 8 DEUTERO books. But in the early 20th Century, American Lutherans began to use the AV English version, and while the original AV had 14 DEUTERO books in it, most American editions did not. Lutherans - buying their tomes from local book stores that only had AV's with 66 books in it, thus bought AV's with 66 books in them. It's that easy.

BUT Lutheran publishing houses still have the 8 Deutero books available (I personally own The Lutheran Study Bible put out by Concordia Publishing House in two volumns - and it includes the 8). CPH also publishes studies of the 8. And yes, some Lutheran lectionaries including readings from the 8.

I see zero evidence that the worlds 75 million Lutherans officially hold that the 8 are NOT to be read or that the 8 are equal to say the Epistle to the Romans. Your statement appears to be very wrong.




.

I was never breached on what OT books were canon or not when I decided to dust off the Holy Bible for the first time (a Catholic Bible) and so when I read the OT I read all the books therein.. This edition was published in the early 1970s and was my grandmas worn out bible, the word "Apocrypha" was never mentioned but maybe in the introduction, the books are in order of historical biblical timeline even though the known publishing date point to the greek translation period and the authors were often unknown.
In fact it wasn't until I started going to the Pentecostal church that I saw in their modern KJV that those books were missing but the GOSPEL was really all that mattered, but regardless, many of these missing books were never mentioned just like many OT canon books today are hardly if ever brought up in church.
About 1/3rd of the modern KJV of the OT are hardly used if any by teachers and churches today.
The apocrypha books are intermingled in my grandmas bible, 1rst and 2nd Esdras is after Ezra, so how was I to know?
I thought all bibles were the same.
After diligent research I found favor in the Septuagint which includes those missing books, not just because of those books and not just because it's more accurate than the Masoretic, but mainly because I believe it was Gods doing that He gave the early Christians the OT through the greek translations, I respect and honor our early martyrs who accepted and studied the greek translations, of course they never used the word "canon" because there was no word at the time for Gods scripture to the greek speaking majority of Jews and Gentiles alike.
That's however my experience and view, I respect your views my friend, I just don't accept that the greek translations were not Gods doing and that Christians had to perfect the OT that they already had just because the Jews buried them themselves.
Our NT books however DID need Christian discernment as many new Gnostic versions of with a different Gospel were seeping into the Christian churches.
I'm 100% in favor that Clements letters were not included in the NT, there was no need to become Talmudic in the sense of continuously adding to the Gospel, the vision and revelation of John is the final prophesy and conclusion of the end time ven though it took centuries to discern. The OT of Jesus time corresponds to the likeness of the Greek translation and this is witnessed by the NT quotes of the OT.
Jesus opened a scroll and quoted Isaiah word for word according to the Greek OT and NT, the Hebrew Masoretic is either correct or Jesus is correct and the Septuagint agrees with Him.
No wonder why the POST OT Hebrew Masoretic would alter Isaiah with a Jewish "idiom" for not only wiggle room but to discredited the Greek translations that Christians were using to witness to them.

 

[NathanH83]

So the books in the apocrypha were authored by Catholics, and they’re about Catholic history?

 

[Josiah]

So the books in the apocrypha were authored by Catholics, and they’re about Catholic history?

What books?

You call whatever books you're talking about "APOCRYPHA" which means "not canonical, not the rule, not the norm for faith and practice - but useful to read." That's typically the English word used for many, diverse "sets" of books embraced AS SUCH. The theological (and more universal) word is "deuterocanonical" the word means "UNDER the canon, SUBJECT to the canon." By labeling "them" as such, you are declaring "them" to be such. Many would agree.

I don't recall anyone here (or anywhere else) saying that some registered member of the Catholic Church wrote any book that anyone labels as "deuterocanonical" but Catholics have written thousands of religious books over the centuries and many of them are useful to read but not canoncial, not the norma normans for faith and practice so in a sense....

No, "they" (whatever "they" are) are not about Catholic history - and no one in this thread has said so. But Catholic history does involve books beyond "the 66" Very different situation.

 

[atpollard]

I was never breached on what OT books were canon or not when I decided to dust off the Holy Bible for the first time (a Catholic Bible) and so when I read the OT I read all the books therein.. This edition was published in the early 1970s and was my grandmas worn out bible, the word "Apocrypha" was never mentioned but maybe in the introduction, the books are in order of historical biblical timeline even though the known publishing date point to the greek translation period and the authors were often unknown.
In fact it wasn't until I started going to the Pentecostal church that I saw in their modern KJV that those books were missing but the GOSPEL was really all that mattered, but regardless, many of these missing books were never mentioned just like many OT canon books today are hardly if ever brought up in church.
About 1/3rd of the modern KJV of the OT are hardly used if any by teachers and churches today.
The apocrypha books are intermingled in my grandmas bible, 1rst and 2nd Esdras is after Ezra, so how was I to know?
I thought all bibles were the same.
After diligent research I found favor in the Septuagint which includes those missing books, not just because of those books and not just because it's more accurate than the Masoretic, but mainly because I believe it was Gods doing that He gave the early Christians the OT through the greek translations, I respect and honor our early martyrs who accepted and studied the greek translations, of course they never used the word "canon" because there was no word at the time for Gods scripture to the greek speaking majority of Jews and Gentiles alike.
That's however my experience and view, I respect your views my friend, I just don't accept that the greek translations were not Gods doing and that Christians had to perfect the OT that they already had just because the Jews buried them themselves.
Our NT books however DID need Christian discernment as many new Gnostic versions of with a different Gospel were seeping into the Christian churches.
I'm 100% in favor that Clements letters were not included in the NT, there was no need to become Talmudic in the sense of continuously adding to the Gospel, the vision and revelation of John is the final prophesy and conclusion of the end time ven though it took centuries to discern. The OT of Jesus time corresponds to the likeness of the Greek translation and this is witnessed by the NT quotes of the OT.
Jesus opened a scroll and quoted Isaiah word for word according to the Greek OT and NT, the Hebrew Masoretic is either correct or Jesus is correct and the Septuagint agrees with Him.
No wonder why the POST OT Hebrew Masoretic would alter Isaiah with a Jewish "idiom" for not only wiggle room but to discredited the Greek translations that Christians were using to witness to them.

You are quite emphatic in your anti-Masoretic Old Testament, and I am about 70% sure that some of your facts are wrong in their details and 90% sure that your facts are wrong in their conspiracy theory tone. Modern translations into English are based on BOTH the Septuagint and Masoretic PLUS the older Scrolls and Scroll fragments that have been discovered. So the issue of the Masoretic and Septuagint Old Testament is really separate from the issue of which books belong in a Bible.

Unfortunately for you, I read neither archaic Hebrew nor archaic Greek so I have never read either the Septuagint or the Masoretic texts.
I just don’t care enough to bother arguing over it and I am content with the 66 in my Bible without introducing the angel Raphael or Hanukkah stories.

 

[Andrew]

You are quite emphatic in your anti-Masoretic Old Testament, and I am about 70% sure that some of your facts are wrong in their details and 90% sure that your facts are wrong in their conspiracy theory tone. Modern translations into English are based on BOTH the Septuagint and Masoretic PLUS the older Scrolls and Scroll fragments that have been discovered. So the issue of the Masoretic and Septuagint Old Testament is really separate from the issue of which books belong in a Bible.

Unfortunately for you, I read neither archaic Hebrew nor archaic Greek so I have never read either the Septuagint or the Masoretic texts.
I just don’t care enough to bother arguing over it and I am content with the 66 in my Bible without introducing the angel Raphael or Hanukkah stories.

It was Jerome who concluded that somehow Christians had been reading a corrupted OT bible because the Jews in Jerusalem with whom he studied with gave him an inconsistent version from what Christians had been reading so Jerome 'officially' married the two with what was contemporary among Christian doctrine with what his newfound fellowship with Jews embraced as Hebrew Holy Text..
Some minor inconsistencies...
"A Virgin will conceive" became "A Maiden will conceive", 75 souls in Jacobs household became 70, "recovery of site to the blind" was completely left out of Isaiah in which Jesus quotes, the timeline of Noah's genealogy is shortened by 600 years, he had a hell of a time completing this task and basically filled in the inconsistencies using the greek and the new hebrew and created a hybrid, also the word "Hell" and "Apocrypha" was introduced by Jerome, I don't know what ancient manuscripts you are referring to because he did not use the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't even discovered then.

Even though Jerome may have made a mistake during his translations, even though he used a word "hell" to replace various specific words that had very different meanings, even though he did not know what to do with those missing books and labeled them "obscure" and even though human error is unavoidable when converting languages to other languages, the GOSPEL can't ever be lost!
So regardless if you are EO or RCC or Protestant, we are all of one accord in the Body of Christ.

I may be passionate about this subject because of my own personal experience and quest for understanding (as I testified in my last post) but neither Jew nor gentile can take away the GOSPEL of salvation, so brother I do not wish to argue in vanity with you that you must swallow what I present to you as 100% inerrant. It took much time and diligent research to obtain positive affirmation and assurance that the Holy Bible I read when I first sought God was not just 99% Holy but 100%. I would be a complete hypocrite if I told you that your bible is only 99% Holy because I know that's not true, you also have the 100% Holy word of God in your Bible.
The Old Testament foreshadows the New Testament, I am neither Jew nor greek, had I been alive to hear Paul preach the Gospel to me in my modern English tongue or if I were saved by a missionary preaching to a pagan tribe on a foreign island I could have told you a different story
When I read early Church fathers preaching from stories that aren't so popular today I don't feel so awkward discussing them, even defending them, but that's all due to circumstance although there is a lot of peer pressure in the west to bite my tongue when the subject is pressed... Notice I have probably made one or two threads on this subject which were short lived, I prefer to simply join in on the conversations now instead of stirring up my own threads concerning the topic but I do feel validated to express my highest degree of honesty regarding these types of conversation at any given time.

 

[Josiah]

It was Jerome

Jerome was one man. And he's been dead for a really long time.

Yes, Jerome's TRANSLATION into Latin eventually became the official, authorized TRANSLATION of one denomination, the RCC. No other denomination has ever used it, and the RCC doesn't anymore. But his TRANSLATION was authorized - nothing else, not his table of content or personal opinions offered associated with that. Like all TRANSLATIONS, it was flawed (it is impossible to translate anything into anything with 100% accuracy; and remember, this was the work one ONE man - and one not much of an expert in Hebrew or Greek). And I know of no Catholic dogmas that rely on this TRANSLATION.


IF your complaint is with Jerome or with the singular Catholic Church then it might be helpful to clearly indicate that.

somehow Christians had been reading a corrupted OT bible

WHICH Christians?

WHICH Bible? All Christians have NEVER had the SAME tome. And to say "someone" "somehow" "corrupted" the Bible, you'd have to prove there WAS a singular "uncorrputed" ONE at some point - maybe with 5 or 12 or 39 or 27 or 66 or 67 or 72 or 73 or 80 or 83 or 90 books in it. You can't prove such a collection EVER existed as accepted authoritatively by all Christians because such has NEVER existed. Still doesn't. The OOC has several bibles, the EOC still another, the RCC still another, the Anglican Church still another, the Reformed churches still another. The differences don't matter (AT ALL) because nothing that matters, nothing that divides us, not one dogma comes from any of the books beyond the 66.

Jews embraced as Hebrew Holy Text..

Irrelevant to this issue. Not all the books in ANY Christian Bible are written in Hebrew and not all the books in ANY Christian Bible exclude anything originally written in Hebrew.

Even though Jerome ...

IF your "beef" is with the man Jerome (long dead) then start a thread about how bad St. Jerome was.

IF your "beef" is with the Latin Vulgate Translation (used by no one today) then start a thread about how bad that forgotten translation was.

This one is about a corpus of perhaps 7-70 books beyond the 66 that SOME Christians have embraced in SOME way for SOME things and SOMETIMES are included in SOME way in SOME tomes that have "BIBLE" written on the front cover and are or have been sold by bookstores here and there.





.

 

[atpollard]

It was Jerome who concluded that somehow Christians had been reading a corrupted OT bible because the Jews in Jerusalem with whom he studied with gave him an inconsistent version from what Christians had been reading so Jerome 'officially' married the two with what was contemporary among Christian doctrine with what his newfound fellowship with Jews embraced as Hebrew Holy Text..
Some minor inconsistencies...
"A Virgin will conceive" became "A Maiden will conceive", 75 souls in Jacobs household became 70, "recovery of site to the blind" was completely left out of Isaiah in which Jesus quotes, the timeline of Noah's genealogy is shortened by 600 years, he had a hell of a time completing this task and basically filled in the inconsistencies using the greek and the new hebrew and created a hybrid, also the word "Hell" and "Apocrypha" was introduced by Jerome, I don't know what ancient manuscripts you are referring to because he did not use the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't even discovered then.

Let me clarify, since I seem to have failed to communicate.

Point #1: The 66 books in the Protestant bible and the Septuagint vs Masoretic texts.
I have read the KJV bible a little (but did not prefer the archaic grammar). I have read the RSV, the NIV, the NASB and the NLT translations a great deal. I cannot tell you with absolute certainty what manuscripts the translators of the KJV used, but without exception, every other translation that I have read was translated based on the use of all available manuscripts at the time of their translation with greatest emphasis placed on the Masoretic (because it was in Hebrew like the original OT autographs) the Septuagint (because it was older than the Masoretic and therefore predates later copyist errors) and the so called “Dead Sea Scrolls” (which are actually multiple families of scrolls discovered in various places around the region and offer examples of Hebrew manuscripts even older than the Septuagint and thus are the earliest manuscripts that we have.). So all of the angst about Septuagint vs Masoretic has ZERO impact on any English translation that I read. They all contain the text of BOTH sources as well as clarifications drawn from still older sources. Saint Jerome has no impact on my NASB preferred Bible. My NASB preferred Bible includes all of the verses in the Septuagint for the 66 books contained within it. My NASB preferred Bible includes all of the verses in the Masoretic text for the 66 books contained within it. My NASB preferred Bible includes footnotes that explain where the text differs in different sources so that I can decide for myself what is important and what is not.

The point of all of this is that for the 66 books in every modern translation of the bible, the Masoretic vs Septuagint (and St. Jerome) issue is completely irrelevant. It is a non-issue.


Point #2: The question of which books are Scripture and which books are not is different than the question of the difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts.
You seem to be treating the issue of “which translation of the accepted books, Septuagint or Masoretic, is better” as identical to “what books are Holy Scripture”. They are not the same question and all attempts to discuss one issue quickly gets muddied with the other issue.

All scripture is God breathed.
All scripture is handed down by the Apostles and Prophets of God.
All of God’s messengers had their authority authenticated by “miracles, signs and wonders”.
All scripture is in agreement and does not contradict previous revealed scripture.

The 66 books that are universally accepted have been examined by church scholars at multiple times and in multiple locations and have passed the test authentication as Holy Scripture.
Additional books that wish to be considered “Holy Scripture” must be examined and shown to pass the same test as earlier scripture ... otherwise it is a book, but it is not Holy Scripture.


Point #3: You really need to decide which topic you intended to argue about on this thread.
So is this a discussion about “other books”? Then explain what the Masoretic and Septuagint texts have to do with the definition of Holy Scripture and whether other books meet the criteria (or stop bringing them up if they have no bearing on Scripture).

Is this a discussion on the difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic translations? Then it really has nothing to do with other books other than the fact that some books appear in Greek that do not survive in Hebrew.

So what is the focus?

 

[NathanH83]

If the prophecies in Daniel cannot be understood without reading the history of the Maccabees, then how is it beneficial to tell people not to read it?

 

[Albion]

If the prophecies in Daniel cannot be understood without reading the history of the Maccabees, then how is it beneficial to tell people not to read it?

Who here has told anyone not to read it?

 

[atpollard]

If the prophecies in Daniel cannot be understood without reading the history of the Maccabees, then how is it beneficial to tell people not to read it?

Forgive my ignorance, but which specific prophecy in Daniel cannot be understood without reading what in Maccabees?

 

[NathanH83]

Forgive my ignorance, but which specific prophecy in Daniel cannot be understood without reading what in Maccabees?

Wow

 

[Andrew]

Wow

I believe atpollard meant what prophesy in Daniel is fulfilled in Maccabees that remains unanswered in the 66 canon..?

 

[Andrew]

Let me clarify, since I seem to have failed to communicate.

Point #1: The 66 books in the Protestant bible and the Septuagint vs Masoretic texts.
I have read the KJV bible a little (but did not prefer the archaic grammar). I have read the RSV, the NIV, the NASB and the NLT translations a great deal. I cannot tell you with absolute certainty what manuscripts the translators of the KJV used, but without exception, every other translation that I have read was translated based on the use of all available manuscripts at the time of their translation with greatest emphasis placed on the Masoretic (because it was in Hebrew like the original OT autographs) the Septuagint (because it was older than the Masoretic and therefore predates later copyist errors) and the so called “Dead Sea Scrolls” (which are actually multiple families of scrolls discovered in various places around the region and offer examples of Hebrew manuscripts even older than the Septuagint and thus are the earliest manuscripts that we have.). So all of the angst about Septuagint vs Masoretic has ZERO impact on any English translation that I read. They all contain the text of BOTH sources as well as clarifications drawn from still older sources. Saint Jerome has no impact on my NASB preferred Bible. My NASB preferred Bible includes all of the verses in the Septuagint for the 66 books contained within it. My NASB preferred Bible includes all of the verses in the Masoretic text for the 66 books contained within it. My NASB preferred Bible includes footnotes that explain where the text differs in different sources so that I can decide for myself what is important and what is not.

The point of all of this is that for the 66 books in every modern translation of the bible, the Masoretic vs Septuagint (and St. Jerome) issue is completely irrelevant. It is a non-issue.


Point #2: The question of which books are Scripture and which books are not is different than the question of the difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts.
You seem to be treating the issue of “which translation of the accepted books, Septuagint or Masoretic, is better” as identical to “what books are Holy Scripture”. They are not the same question and all attempts to discuss one issue quickly gets muddied with the other issue.

All scripture is God breathed.
All scripture is handed down by the Apostles and Prophets of God.
All of God’s messengers had their authority authenticated by “miracles, signs and wonders”.
All scripture is in agreement and does not contradict previous revealed scripture.

The 66 books that are universally accepted have been examined by church scholars at multiple times and in multiple locations and have passed the test authentication as Holy Scripture.
Additional books that wish to be considered “Holy Scripture” must be examined and shown to pass the same test as earlier scripture ... otherwise it is a book, but it is not Holy Scripture.


Point #3: You really need to decide which topic you intended to argue about on this thread.
So is this a discussion about “other books”? Then explain what the Masoretic and Septuagint texts have to do with the definition of Holy Scripture and whether other books meet the criteria (or stop bringing them up if they have no bearing on Scripture).

Is this a discussion on the difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic translations? Then it really has nothing to do with other books other than the fact that some books appear in Greek that do not survive in Hebrew.

So what is the focus?

The Septuagint go hand and hand with the Apocrypha, it's almost impossible to defend the Apocrypha without bringing up the greek translations that were read by the early greek speaking Christians and Jews at the time, our church fathers had greek names, the NT was written in greek etc.. It wasn't until these writings moved westward that things got rather interesting through the Latin speaking world.

 

[Andrew]

Let me clarify, since I seem to have failed to communicate.

Point #1: The 66 books in the Protestant bible and the Septuagint vs Masoretic texts.
I have read the KJV bible a little (but did not prefer the archaic grammar). I have read the RSV, the NIV, the NASB and the NLT translations a great deal. I cannot tell you with absolute certainty what manuscripts the translators of the KJV used, but without exception, every other translation that I have read was translated based on the use of all available manuscripts at the time of their translation with greatest emphasis placed on the Masoretic (because it was in Hebrew like the original OT autographs) the Septuagint (because it was older than the Masoretic and therefore predates later copyist errors) and the so called “Dead Sea Scrolls” (which are actually multiple families of scrolls discovered in various places around the region and offer examples of Hebrew manuscripts even older than the Septuagint and thus are the earliest manuscripts that we have.). So all of the angst about Septuagint vs Masoretic has ZERO impact on any English translation that I read. They all contain the text of BOTH sources as well as clarifications drawn from still older sources. Saint Jerome has no impact on my NASB preferred Bible. My NASB preferred Bible includes all of the verses in the Septuagint for the 66 books contained within it. My NASB preferred Bible includes all of the verses in the Masoretic text for the 66 books contained within it. My NASB preferred Bible includes footnotes that explain where the text differs in different sources so that I can decide for myself what is important and what is not.

The point of all of this is that for the 66 books in every modern translation of the bible, the Masoretic vs Septuagint (and St. Jerome) issue is completely irrelevant. It is a non-issue.


Point #2: The question of which books are Scripture and which books are not is different than the question of the difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts.
You seem to be treating the issue of “which translation of the accepted books, Septuagint or Masoretic, is better” as identical to “what books are Holy Scripture”. They are not the same question and all attempts to discuss one issue quickly gets muddied with the other issue.

All scripture is God breathed.
All scripture is handed down by the Apostles and Prophets of God.
All of God’s messengers had their authority authenticated by “miracles, signs and wonders”.
All scripture is in agreement and does not contradict previous revealed scripture.

The 66 books that are universally accepted have been examined by church scholars at multiple times and in multiple locations and have passed the test authentication as Holy Scripture.
Additional books that wish to be considered “Holy Scripture” must be examined and shown to pass the same test as earlier scripture ... otherwise it is a book, but it is not Holy Scripture.


Point #3: You really need to decide which topic you intended to argue about on this thread.
So is this a discussion about “other books”? Then explain what the Masoretic and Septuagint texts have to do with the definition of Holy Scripture and whether other books meet the criteria (or stop bringing them up if they have no bearing on Scripture).

Is this a discussion on the difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic translations? Then it really has nothing to do with other books other than the fact that some books appear in Greek that do not survive in Hebrew.

So what is the focus?

I'll try my best to not include any Jewish conspiracy even though it plays a big part in why we eventually went with the Masoretic instead of just sticking to what we already had..
We have stacks and stacks of documents from the ante Nicene fathers who were all in agreement that the books they mention and quote from for exegesis used as examples of Gods blessings were indeed the words of God and sacred scriptures.. that's at least a start.
The ante nicene volume is just 1/4th of the rest of the early church writings and it includes over 300 quotes and reference to books that only 12% of Christians read (according to some study I found online) but that 100% of Christians during the first 3 centuries agreed were inspired of God because it was entrusted to them 200 years in advance.

 

[NathanH83]

Forgive my ignorance, but which specific prophecy in Daniel cannot be understood without reading what in Maccabees?

Let me just share my own experience.

Basically, over the course of more than 20 years of being a Christian, I’ve read through he Bible multiple times. I’ve also read through the book of Daniel multiple times. But I could never understand Daniel 8 or Daniel 11. They were always so confusing.

But one day, recently, I started watching a bunch of documentaries on the life of Alexander the Great. I watched documentaries on Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime, and stuff like that. I watched documentaries by PBS, the History Channel, and those sorts of things.

I learned all about how Alexander was the son of Phillip, king of Macedon, how he became king of the Greeks, how he conquered the Persians, and even conquered most of the known world. Then he died at a very young age of 32. Then the Greek empire divided up into 4 sections, and his 4 generals became kings of each of those 4 sections.

Then, I stumbled upon a YouTube video of some pastor saying that Daniel 8 prophesies about the life of Alexander the Great. This really caught me by surprise, because I’d never heard of any such thing.

So I went and read Daniel 8 again. And this chapter that was always so mysterious and confusing to me had suddenly come alive! I could understand it!

It talks about a goat with a single horn on its head. That goat is Greece, and the horn is its first king, meaning that single horn is Alexander the Great. Then it says that this goat attacks a ram with 2 horns. The bigger horn is the Persians, and the smaller horn is the Medes.

Then, after defeating the Medes and Persians, the goat’s single horn breaks off, and 4 other horns grow up in its place. This is symbolic of Alexander dying, and his 4 generals replacing him as king, and the Greek empire dividing up into four sections. This is also why Daniel 7 refers to Greece as a leopard with 4 heads and 4 wings.

I couldn’t believe it!!!
I can actually understand this chapter now! The symbolism fits perfectly!

It seemed awfully strange to me that all this time, about 20 year or so of being a Christian, reading the Bible over and over again, and I could never understand this prophecy. But now, after watching documentaries from History Channel and PBS, now it made sense.

But wait a minute. Why should I have to read a secular history book or watch a secular documentary in order to understand Biblical prophecy? Something about that just didn’t make sense. Surely there should have been some book of the Bible explaining this history in order for me to understand the prophecy.

Well, anyway, one day I decided to read the book of 1 Maccabees. I had been looking into the Greek Septuagint, and how New Testament authors side with the Septuagint more often than the Hebrew Masoretic. That’s what got me interested in reading apocryphal books.

I had already read Tobit and Judith, which were really great short stories, but hadn’t read 1 and 2 Maccabees yet. So I open up 1 Maccabees and start reading the first chapter.

1 Maccabees chapter 1 starts off saying that Alexander was the son of Phillip, king of Macedon, became king of the Greeks, defeated the Persians, and then became proud and died at a young age, so his kingdom was divided up among his generals. And that was chapter 1.

I thought, “Oh my goodness!”

Here I am thinking that there should have been a book of the Bible containing this history, and that I shouldn’t have to rely upon some secular history book or some secular documentary in order to understand the prophesies in Daniel 8.

And then I come to find out, there IS a book of the Bible containing this history. It’s been there all along. But I hadn’t bothered to read it because they told me it isn’t scripture.

So because they told me it isn’t scripture, I didn’t bother reading it. Because I never bothered reading it, 20 years or so have gone by with me not understanding the prophesies in Daniel 8.

Now, there’s a 2nd half to the prophecy in Daniel 8. And that was still kind of a mystery to me for awhile. But then after studying the events of Hanukkah, it started to become clear that the 2nd half of the prophecy is about king Antiochus and the events of Hanukkah. When Daniel 8 talks about the “little horn” it’s talking about king Antiochus Epiphenes, the villain of the Hanukkah story. So the 2nd part of the prophecy started making sense too.

Then, at the end of Daniel 10, the angel tells Daniel that there’s going to be a few more Persian kings. And he starts talking about the Prince of Persia, and about how the Prince of Greece is coming soon.

Then the angel tells Daniel that a great king will arise, and he’ll die, but the kingdom won’t go to his descendants, but will be divided up and scattered to the 4 winds of heaven. This is basically repeating what happens to Alexander’s kingdom.

Then, throughout Daniel 11, it talks all about the king of the South and the king of the North.

You see, out of those 4 sections of the Greek empire, one of them is south of Israel, and the other is north of Israel. The one south of Israel is the kingdom ruled by Ptolemy (one of Alexander’s generals), and the one in the north is ruled by Seleucus (another one of Alexander’s generals). Antiochus, the enemy of the Jews in the Hanukkah story, comes from the Seleucid empire.

Anyway, the whole entire chapter of Daniel 11 is all about the things that go on between the king of the north and the king of the south. The whole time it’s referring to the different kings that ruled over Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires. People who have studied it have found it all to be very accurate.

I still haven’t figured out all the details of Daniel 11 and how it relates to the events in 1 and 2 Maccabees. But Martin Luther apparently understood Daniel 11 really well, and thought that this is the reason 1 Maccabees ought to be considered holy scripture, because it’s necessary for understanding Daniel 11.

 

[Lamb]

Learning about secular history from old documents doesn't make them canon.

 

[NathanH83]

Learning about secular history from old documents doesn't make them canon.

Can you explain what you mean?

 

[Josiah]

.

A bit of history recorded in a book CAN help us understand something in the Bible. Scholars OFTEN use secular sources such as the Jewish historian Josephus and many others (even archeology).

Where I disagree with our friends here is that ERGO those secular history and archeology books MUST be the the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. They can be HELPFUL in understanding Scripture without being canon. Indeed, for 2000 years, probably the two most quoted, most used books to help us understand the Bible have been Josephus' "History of the Jews" and the "Didache". NEITHER of which has ever been regarded as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Have these two books been regarded as extremely helpful? Absolutely! Accurate? Yes! Canon? Nope.


MANY agree that there are LOTS of books (probably thousands) that are good to read, inspirational and informational, and that can help us better understand Scripture and that contain accurate history and sound theology... books often quoted and used by Christians.... but THAT per se does NOT in any way mandate that THEREFORE those books are the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. The whole apologetic is illogical and quite absurd, IMO.




.

 

[NathanH83]

.

A bit of history recorded in a book CAN help us understand something in the Bible. Scholars OFTEN use secular sources such as the Jewish historian Josephus and many others (even archeology).

Where I disagree with our friends here is that ERGO those secular history and archeology books MUST be the the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. They can be HELPFUL in understanding Scripture without being canon. Indeed, for 2000 years, probably the two most quoted, most used books to help us understand the Bible have been Josephus' "History of the Jews" and the "Didache". NEITHER of which has ever been regarded as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Have these two books been regarded as extremely helpful? Absolutely! Accurate? Yes! Canon? Nope.


MANY agree that there are LOTS of books (probably thousands) that are good to read, inspirational and informational, and that can help us better understand Scripture and that contain accurate history and sound theology... books often quoted and used by Christians.... but THAT per se does NOT in any way mandate that THEREFORE those books are the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. The whole apologetic is illogical and quite absurd, IMO.




.

There’s a difference with Maccabees though. Maccabees was declared to be scripture by multiple early church councils. Josephus was not. Maccabees was in every Christian’s Bible for the first 1500 years of Christianity until the Protestants took it out. Josephus was not. Is that really an honest comparison that you’re making?

 

[Andrew]

Then, at the end of Daniel 10, the angel tells Daniel that there’s going to be a few more Persian kings. And he starts talking about the Prince of Persia, and about how the Prince of Greece is coming soon.

Then the angel tells Daniel that a great king will arise, and he’ll die, but the kingdom won’t go to his descendants, but will be divided up and scattered to the 4 winds of heaven. This is basically repeating what happens to Alexander’s kingdom.

Then, throughout Daniel 11, it talks all about the king of the South and the king of the North.

You see, out of those 4 sections of the Greek empire, one of them is south of Israel, and the other is north of Israel. The one south of Israel is the kingdom ruled by Ptolemy (one of Alexander’s generals), and the one in the north is ruled by Seleucus (another one of Alexander’s generals). Antiochus, the enemy of the Jews in the Hanukkah story, comes from the Seleucid empire.

Anyway, the whole entire chapter of Daniel 11 is all about the things that go on between the king of the north and the king of the south. The whole time it’s referring to the different kings that ruled over Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires. People who have studied it have found it all to be very accurate.

.