Apocraphal Books: when canonized?

  • Thread starter Thread starter taustin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

taustin

Guest
An acquaintance tried to convince me that the Catholic Apocrapha were not “added” (or canonized) until the time of the Protestant Reformation, at which point Martin Luther rejected them. I told him I had never heard that, but on the contrary, I had thought the Apocrapha were always part of the original Catholic canon, but had merely been rejected by Protestants at a later point.

Which of the two conflicting beliefs is true (if either are…)?

Thank you 🙂
 
During the Councils of Hippo (393AD) and Carthage (397AD), the Old Testament Canons were approved. These included the Deuterocanonicals (“Apochrypha” to our Separated Brethren). Neither the Pope or any Ecumenical Councils “officially” approved of the canons until the Council of Trent.

But there’s a good reason for this - NO ONE CONTESTED THE CANON UNTIL MARTIN LUTHER IN THE 1500’S. This is the way the Church works. If a local council decides a matter of Church Doctrine, it is usually because there is a local dispute. If the Pope disagrees, he will say so. If the dispute is unsettled, and takes on a larger scope, then an Ecumenical Council may be called. This is how we decided on the Holy Trinity, the Nature of Christ, the Mother of God, and numerous other doctrines.

Fast forward 1000+ years, and Martin Luther and friends contest the canon. Thus the Council of Trent was convened (it should be noted that Martin Luther and his new church were invited, but did not attend) to settle this dispute.

Your friends have an easy arguement to prove against you. All they have to do is produce a bible written before the Council of Trent which was done with the approval of our beloved Mother Church which does not include these books. It ought to be easy. There are hundreds if not thousands of bibles (the oldest existent one dates back to 481 if I’m correct) still in existence. They only have to show you ONE!

God Bless!

Notworthy
 
Hi, protestants refer to it as the “Apocrypha” (meaning esoteric, uninspired, etc). Catholics & Orthodox (who split from us in 1054) refer to it as the deuterocanon. Visit scripturecatholic.com. Since the Orthodox accept it, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t us that “added” it to Scripture during the Reformation (Deformation).

God bless!
 
40.png
taustin:
An acquaintance tried to convince me that the Catholic Apocrapha were not “added” (or canonized) until the time of the Protestant Reformation, at which point Martin Luther rejected them. I told him I had never heard that, but on the contrary, I had thought the Apocrapha were always part of the original Catholic canon, but had merely been rejected by Protestants at a later point.

Which of the two conflicting beliefs is true (if either are…)?

Thank you 🙂
You are very much correct. The first time the entire canon including the deuterocanonicals were authoritatively cited and from then on used by the Catholic Church, was at the council of Rome 382 AD under pope Damasus. Martin Luther and the other reformers relied NOT on Jesus’ Church (the Catholic Church) and its authority but on the authority of the Jews who proclaimed the OT (as Protestants now have in the OT–33 books) to be the correct canon. But the Jews made this claim many centuries after Christianity began, so the Jews didn’t have the “authority” to proclaim any new revelation since it had been transfered to the apostles up unto the death of the last apostle.

The Septuagint (LXX) the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT contained the deutero’s.

I would have said that Luther relied on the Palestinian canon but there was no such thing as just the “Palestinian canon” because it the OT canon hadn’t been closed and in Palestine at that time there wasn’t just one canon but a few:

**The Pharisees had the Pharasial canon which included all of the books currently in the Protestant OT canon.

**The Sadducees had the Sadducial canon which only recognized the pentateuch (the first five books of the OT.)

**Then there was the Qumran canon found in the 1940’s in the Qumran caves but scholars don’t know at this time what
canon they ascribed to since only fragments were found and not full codex’s. Qumrans I’ve heard were a devout and pious group.

The council of Trent made a formal proclomation of infallibility stating and affirming what had been an infallible and authoritative decision made 1200 years prior by the council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus. This in confirmed by Jimmy Akin of Catholic answers, Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN, in fact I just heard him say this today and Robert Sungenis in his book “Not by Scripture Alone.”
 
40.png
Bishopite:
… Martin Luther and the other reformers relied NOT on Jesus’ Church (the Catholic Church) and its authority but on the authority of the Jews who proclaimed the OT (as Protestants now have in the OT–33 books) to be the correct canon… But the Jews made this claim many centuries after Christianity began, so the Jews didn’t have the “authority” to proclaim any new revelation since it had been transfered to the apostles up unto the death of the last apostle.
The most important part of the subject is highlighted in black, no doubt.
  1. THE Church put together the books, going through 100’s of books to narrow it down. (4th century)
  2. Jews “canonized” the book long after Christianity
  3. Protestants picked and chose, leading to a strip of books (note how they degressed?)
  4. The orthodox and catholic churches use the 4th century book
  5. How do you reform a church by getting rid of original text and leaving?
 
I thought the Palestine Jews created an Old Testament Canon around 90AD.

Notworthy
 
You may be right, I’m bouncing around this forum and some college football forums. No books out! hehe…😃

Having fun and staying up a little late tonight.
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
I thought the Palestine Jews created an Old Testament Canon around 90AD.

Notworthy
Yea, Council of Jamnia. It was largely a response to the growth of Christianity, but they do have some logical reasons for it. In the end, we go with Church authority.
 
You’re correct. The main reason to create the “official” canon was in response to those bloody christians who abandoned Jerusalem shortly before the Romans had their way with the million or so Jews that remained.

They may have been a little bitter.

Notworthy
 
First of all we Catholics don’t call the seven books left our of the Protestant Bibles “apocraphal books”, we call them the deuterocanonicals. Deuterocanonical DOESN’T mean second canon as some assert. It means secondarily included in the canon as some New Testament books were also secondarily included e.g. Hebrews, Revelation, 1,2 John.

The so called “council of Jamnia” or Jevna which was made up of a number of promament Jews or Jewish theologians who got together around 90 AD to respond to this newly formed Jewish sectarian group called “Christians” as some of the posts have correctly stated. These Jewish authorities agreed to accept the Old Testament as it is in Protestant Bibles from Genesis to Malachi but they rejected the deuterocanonicals. However, that they rejected the deutero’s didn’t matter since they also rejected the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

And since Jesus who is God, came to Earth and began a new covanent fortold in the OT:
Jeremiah 31:31-32
“I will make a new covenant…NOT like to covenant that I made with their fathers when I took them out of Egypt.”

Jesus fulfilled this new covenant promise in the NT by giving his apostles His authority (Luke 10:16, Mt 16:18,18:18) and therefore the Jews no longer had the ablility to receive divine revelation, let alone define in any athoritative sense what God had revealed since they rejected Christ Jesus who was sent by God, God in flesh and of the same substance as God the Father.
They were no longer the authority of Gods truth so even though they rejected the deutero’s it didn’t matter.

And these Jews at Jamnia were Pharisial Jews and that carried on unto this day within Judaism.
 
It’s spelled 'apocryphal." It’s spelled “pharisaical.” “Foretold.”

Isn’t the essential question, “WDJR”? What Did Jesus Read? Didn’t Christ and the Apostles quote the Septuagint, and other books that are no longer extant? Since Adam, God put men in charge–not books. Luther added “SOLA” to “SCRIPTURA” to put a book in charge, i.e., nobody.

Christ’s making Simon the Rock upon which He founds His Church, and His Prime Minister as holder of the Keys to the Kingdom, are ignored by Protestants. What does it matter what version of the Bible is used? When we disagree, who decides? Peter is in charge, the Rock upon which the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church, is built.
 
I ran across this from Mark Shea’s Five Myths about Seven Books. It’s a good essay on the Deuterocanonicals. But in this section, Jesus uses the Bible of the person He’s talking to, in order to teach them. We could learn a valuable lesson in this. Read on:

Myth 1 - The deuterocanonical books are not found in the Hebrew Bible. The Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, added them after Luther rejected it.

The problems with this theory are first, it relies on the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. This is false. In fact, the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period. Some people will tell you that there must have been since, they say, Jesus held people accountable to obey the Scriptures. But this is also untrue. For in fact, Jesus held people accountable to obey their conscience and therefore, to obey Scripture insofar as they were able to grasp what constituted “Scripture.”

Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn’t see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture, which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees), to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them “You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2nd Maccabees”? Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn’t try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn’t mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees’ whittled-down canon.

When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. That’s why Christ and the Apostles didn’t hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn’t imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek - which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It’s a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "**teaching as doctrines human traditions
." This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly “adding” to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the “merely human works” of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

Continued…

Notworthy
 
… Continued from previous post.

But there’s the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly “added” by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren’t the deuterocanonical books in today’s Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community.
Code:
In fact, it wasn't until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as "too Gentile-tainted." Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews - though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

But remember that by the time the Jewish council of Javneh rolled around, the Catholic Church had been in existence and using the Septuagint Scriptures in its teaching, preaching, and worship for nearly 60 years, just as the Apostles themselves had done. So the Church hardly felt the obligation to conform to the wishes of the rabbis in excluding the deuterocanonical books any more than they felt obliged to follow the rabbis in rejecting the New Testament writings. The fact is that after the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost, the rabbis no longer had authority from God to settle such issues. That authority, including the authority to define the canon of Scripture, had been given to Christ's Church.
Notworthy
 
Semper Fi:
Hi, protestants refer to it as the “Apocrypha” (meaning esoteric, uninspired, etc). Catholics & Orthodox (who split from us in 1054) refer to it as the deuterocanon. Visit scripturecatholic.com. Since the Orthodox accept it, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t us that “added” it to Scripture during the Reformation (Deformation).

God bless!
A correction…

The Catholic Church calls them deuterocanons, so named at the Council of Trent. The Orthodox don’t have a name for the books, they simply consider them a part of the bible. They also have a few other books in thier Old Testament canon, such as Maccabees 3 & 4.
 
…I had thought the Apocrapha were always part of the original Catholic canon, but had merely been rejected by Protestants at a later point.
According to Protestant historian Philip Schaff:
The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both***, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptu***res, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the reading of other books in the churches, excepting the Acts of the Martyrs on their memorial days. … The New Testament canon is the same as ours.

This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman See it received when Innocent I. and Gelasius I. (a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books.

This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.

(Schaff, P., History of the Christian Church, Ch. IX, § 118. Sources of Theology – Scripture and Tradition)
It seems then that the Catholic canon was fixed since the 4th century, according to even Protestant scholarship.
 
Here is another well known and respected Protestant theologian [Dr. Norman Geisler] who agrees that the New Testament canon issue was closed in the fourth century.

“While there was some debate about the books that had initially been accepted into the New Testament church, eventually the universal Christian church came to pronounce unanimously on the twenty-seven books of the present New Testament canon. There has been no significant debate on this since around A.D. 400.” (Dr. Norman Geisler–Systematic theology page 536)

Notice how he inserts his own name for the Catholic Church by using the name “universal Christian church.” It is well documented and a fact of history that the only “church” in existence in the fourth century was the “Catholic Church.” Dr. Geisler’s use of the word “universal” is apropos since the word “Catholic” means “universal.”
 
40.png
taustin:
An acquaintance tried to convince me that the Catholic Apocrapha were not “added” (or canonized) until the time of the Protestant Reformation, at which point Martin Luther rejected them. I told him I had never heard that, but on the contrary, I had thought the Apocrapha were always part of the original Catholic canon, but had merely been rejected by Protestants at a later point.

Which of the two conflicting beliefs is true (if either are…)?

Thank you 🙂
First of all, Catholics call them dueterocanonicals NOT apochryphas since they were secondarily included in the canon.
And the deuterocanonicals were included in the canon and were authoritatively cited starting in 382 AD in the council of Rome.
A good article to read is in “This Rock” Magazine:
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
 
I’ve always enjoyed the fact that the original KJV included the entire Catholic canon. And let’s not forget that Luther wanted James, Jude and Revelation (maybe another few, too) taken out, too.
 
The existance of a “Council of Jamnia” is questionable, as well as the theory that somehow the Jewish Canon was established there:
As regards the pertinence of the term “Council of Jamnia” Jack P. Lewis writes in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. III, pp. 634-7 (New York 1992):
The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. … These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top