And, the term “apocrypha” means “hidden.” I would like to know what is “hidden” in 2 Maccabees, for example. Or Tobit. Or any of them, actually. Consider Judith, which many scratch their heads over. All Israel was delivered from death by the action of a single woman. Whereas Judith used violence, Mary delivered Israel from death by her simple obedience. It helps to draw back and look at the big picture.
Sorry my friend, I am only using the word apocrypha because it has been termed that. I suspect the name was chosen because those books were being systematically “hidden” from the protestant Bible.
Hi John,
, it doesn’t explain the circumstances surrounding the other 6 DC books, which have no doctrinal issues of any particular note. One has to then believe that, since he didn’t agree with 2 Macc, he had to throw them all out. This doesn’t stand to reason, since the precedent of selectivity of the books of the Septuagint was long established. It also doesn’t stand to reason, considering that he translated (with help) and included them in his 1534 Bible. Further, in his prefaces, he speaks very highly of a number of the DC’s, particularly 1 Macc.This would presume that Luther had no experience with 2 Macc prior to Leipzig, which I’ve seen no evidence to support.
The dispute of the Antilegomena was a centuries old one, dating back to Eusebius. Luther states his reason for for his disputing them, and only in James does the issue of works and justification come up. So, again, we have the issue of why he wasn’t selective, if doctrine was the case.
I agree. My point was that Judas Maccabeus is around the time of 170 - 160 BC or so. This is clearly the time leading up to Messiah.
No problem! I know that this term has been applied to the Deuterocanonical books by those who had no authority to declare them either inspired or non-inspired. They were essentially forced to do something. Fortunately, many denominations are re-evaluating the DC books and realizing that there may indeed be some reason to consider that they are inspired.
Glad to hear this. There is much more to them than most - even Catholics - first think. And, it is not so much hidden as it is anticipatory in nature. Another reason to re-consider the DC books is that it is quite credibly believed that Daniel was also written in this time frame. All of the books indicate, in one manner or another, a world-changing event to come.
Fr. of Jazz posted good verses to refute Matt Carm’s article. Here are some more.
I am pretty sure its because protestants removed a lot of books. Luther wanted to remove the stuff that contradicted “sola scriptura”.
The Catholic Church decided on the basis of Apostolic Tradition. It’s that simple: The Apostles used them, they had been read in all the churches, especially the Apostolic Sees (5 of them), since the beginning.
Thank you for your comments!
Thanks for the link John.
I think you are quite incorrect. Luther and Lutherans are not timid about the necessity of confession/ Holy Absolution. Simply because it isn’t exactly the same as Catholic practice does not make it timid or generic, and it is highly different than the Lord’s Prayer. It is Absolution, from the pastor in Christ’s stead, that distinguishes Holy Absolution, the sacrament.
This is an indictment that a agree with, of American and English speaking Lutherans! We as Lutherans in American need to return to using the 74 book Bibles that our German counterparts have used, at least since 1534.