Apocrypha? Pope added?

[kotes19]

Someone left this message for me on a forum apparently trying to tell me that the Apocrypha isn’t inspired:

“The apocrypha was originally considered not to be scripture by the Catholic church, but was added many years later, by another pope. I personally do not believe in it, as most protestants do not”

Which pope is she claiming added these? This sounds fishy to me. I am ill equipped about the bible canonization but her remark sounds incorrect.

Any quick answer I might give her?
Thanks

kotes19

 

[Leopard]

…Which pope is she claiming added these?..

You’ll have to ask her that. Since she is wrong on the whole idea in general, she may be wrongly attributing it to any pope in specific.

 

[kotes19]

You’ll have to ask her that. Since she is wrong on the whole idea in general, she may be wrongly attributing it to any pope in specific.

I will ask her. Thanks…

Oh, she also says this:
“I would like to see some verses to back up some of the beliefs of Catholics. However, since I only believe in the old and new testament, quoting from the apocrypha or the sola, won’t really help. But feel free to read over that debate and send me some verses to back it up”

Huh?

 

[Fidelis]

Someone left this message for me on a forum apparently trying to tell me that the Apocrypha isn’t inspired:

“The apocrypha was originally considered not to be scripture by the Catholic church, but was added many years later, by another pope. I personally do not believe in it, as most protestants do not”

Which pope is she claiming added these? This sounds fishy to me. I am ill equipped about the bible canonization but her remark sounds incorrect.

Any quick answer I might give her?
Thanks

kotes19

Your friend has quite an imagination, but happens to be totally wrong. My first answer to this is “That is the first time I have ever heard that theory. Would you mind giving me your source? Thank you.”

In the meantime, it sounds like you are unsure of this yourself. Here are some resources to educate yourself, so you can help educate her next time round:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011fea4.asp
catholic.com/library/old_testament_canon.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807frs.asp

 

[Gamera]

Someone left this message for me on a forum apparently trying to tell me that the Apocrypha isn’t inspired:

“The apocrypha was originally considered not to be scripture by the Catholic church, but was added many years later, by another pope. I personally do not believe in it, as most protestants do not”

Which pope is she claiming added these? This sounds fishy to me. I am ill equipped about the bible canonization but her remark sounds incorrect.

Any quick answer I might give her?
Thanks

kotes19

Sorry, I’ve never even heard this claim before. I’m not sure what she’s thinking of. But it’s alright, the Catholic faith is easily proven just from the Protestant Canon.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I will ask her. Thanks…

Oh, she also says this:
“I would like to see some verses to back up some of the beliefs of Catholics. However, since I only believe in the old and new testament, quoting from the apocrypha or the sola, won’t really help. But feel free to read over that debate and send me some verses to back it up”

Huh?

The Deutrocanonical Books or the Septuagint have always been a part of the Christian Scripture Canon for over 2,000 yrs. The two major Apostolic Churches, Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox accepted these books as worthy use for their liturgical worship.

Here is a summary of how the Biblical Canon was made.

The Deutrocanonical Books existed during Jesus Christ’s time. It was use by the Hellenistic Jews as well as those of Hebrew speaking Jews. The Jews at the time never closed Scripture.

In the year 382 AD in the Synod of Rome Pope Damascus along with the bishops made a list of the Biblical Canon to be use in Scripture. These include the Deutrocanonical Books. The Synod was local. Another list by the Council of Hippo in 392 AD and Council of Carthage in 396 AD.

The same list was made in the Council of Florence in 1438-1446, the two Churches E. Orthodox and Catholic Church recognized the Deutrocanonical Books / Septuagint as part of the Christian canon.

I would also like to provide you some links that the Jesus and the Apostles use these books.

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html - Deutrocanonical Books.

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html - Septuagint.

These links does not exactly quote the Septuagint or the Deutrocanonical but these books have been cited.

There is one example.

Let us look at the Issiah 7:14

The Hebrew translation of Isaiah 7:14 uses the following translation.

14* Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.*

While the Greek Translation of the Isaiah 7:14 (Septuagint) has it written as:

14* Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear* a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Let us look at the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 1:23

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

The Gospel writer used virgin instead of woman. Matthew use the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14

Another point I like to make is that the Dead Sea Scroll also contain the Deutrocanonical Books in the original Hebrew language. So indeed the books of what she called Apycypha were used by Jesus and the Apostles and their successors.

It saddens me that the Protestants decided to go with the Jewish canon of the OT and seem to accept the Council of Jamnia which closed the Scripture for the Jews. The Council of the Jamnia also denied that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[Calvinator]

The Deutrocanonical Books or the Septuagint have always been a part of the Christian Scripture Canon for over 2,000 yrs. The two major Apostolic Churches, Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox accepted these books as worthy use for their liturgical worship.

The books you call deuterocanonical are a subset of the septuagint, the two are not synonymous, “septuagint” does not equal “deuterocanonical”.

The EO church also accepts books that neither one of us accept as canonical and these books were also included in the septuagint. You see, the septuagint included books such as Maccabees 3 and Maccabees 4, which we agree aren’t canonical. Just because a book was included in the septuagint does not mean that they are ipso facto canonical.

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html - Deutrocanonical Books.

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html - Septuagint.

These links does not exactly quote the Septuagint or the Deutrocanonical but these books have been cited.

There is one example.

Let us look at the Issiah 7:14

The Hebrew translation of Isaiah 7:14 uses the following translation.

14* Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.*

While the Greek Translation of the Isaiah 7:14 (Septuagint) has it written as:

14* Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear* a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Let us look at the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 1:23

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

The Gospel writer used virgin instead of woman. Matthew use the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14

Again, “septuagint” does not equal “deuterocanonical”.

The example you have given may demonstrate the usage of the septuagint, it does nothing to further your cause for canonical status of the so called deutero’s.

To the best of my knowledge the so called deuteros are never, ever quoted as scripture in the NT. For example, Jesus nor the apostles ever say anything similar to “It is written…” and then quote from the so called deuteros.

Another point I like to make is that the Dead Sea Scroll also contain the Deutrocanonical Books in the original Hebrew language. So indeed the books of what she called Apycypha were used by Jesus and the Apostles and their successors.

I do believe that the Essenes book “Jubilees(?)”, which is included in the Dead Sea scrolls and isn’t canonical by the way, limits the OT canon to 22 books. How many books does the RCC accept as canonical in the OT?

Also, Jamnia didn’t add any books to the canon, it simply re-affirmed what had always been believed.

 

[kotes19]

Wow ~ seems our seeker isn’t really seeking afterall. Here’s her answer for my “which pope added the apocrypha” question:

“honestly, not sure. But even if I can’t find it again, I still don’t believe in it. Won’t be able to convince me otherwise.”

Hm, I then asked, “Then with all due respect, logically, why are you asking me to explain the RCC if your mind is already closed? I won’t attempt your conversion, but I would like to explain misunderstandings.”

Hmph. I run into this hit and run hit and run quite a bit.
Tsk. Tsk.

Too bad, so sad.

Thanks, all. I appreciate your time and replies.
I love defending our faith, tho the canon is one area I am very weak in ~ but learning!
Have a good weekend.

~kotes19

 

[kotes19]

Hold the phone ~ ! She’s back and on fire, too!

Here’s her latest: I am curious how you guys/gals would reply. I am going to tackle these straight on apologetically but I’d appreciate any tidbits you want to throw in ~ Thanks

"The last verse of the Bible clearly states that no one is to add or take away from the scripture. If the apocrypha is “inspired text” then how come it’s not in my Bible?
Why was it added years later?
Why do Catholics believe that Mary was without sin, when it clearly says the only one that was without sin was Christ? Because of the phrase, “full of Grace”?
That is a latin mistranslation.

Beyond that, she had children after Jesus.
Why would anyone pray to saints or ask them to pray for you? We are all saints, and the only one person that is omnipresent is God so how could a saint hear someone in NewYork and Africa at the same time?? There are many holes.

I actually didn’t know there were that many holes until I entered that debate and started researching it. Let me ask you this… not to offend… the other books in the Catholic Bible… how is that diffferent from the Mormons that believe that the other books in their Bible are inspired text too?"

Hmm… so she’s saying we have a Latin mistranslation of Mary and that we’ve added books years later.

Load me up guys … give me some fodder here… I’d be grateful.
~kotes19

 

[Olivermax]

What the protestants call the Apocrypha was always a part of the inspired Bible. It was part of the Old Testament during the time of Jesus and his apostles. The Church always accepted all the books of the Old Testament that Jesus did. It was not until the reformers came along, and decided to “re-invent” the Bible, that these Old Testament books were thrown out by them. It seems that these Old Testament books didn’t agree with Martin Luther’s theology, so he tossed them. He also wanted to toss out some books of the New Testament, (like the Epistle of James), but there was an outcry so they were spared.

I suggest you read “Born Evangelical, Born Again Catholic” for a very thorough discussion of this and other pertinent topics.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, you’re “friend” is probably referring to the Council of Trent which was convened in response to the Protestant Reformation in the 15th century (give or take 100 years!!) In it, the Council re-affirmed, not “added-to”, the Canon that the Church had determined in the late 4th century, at the (local) councils of Hippo and Carthage.

But the irony of your friends charges is amazing. First of all, the Deuterocanonicals were in the original KJV of their Bibles, albeit they were referred to as “profitable, but not inspired”. They were still in the bibles. It was over a 100 years later before the books were removed from their bibles.

So while you’re friend is citing Revelation to accuse us of **adding **books to the Bible, her bible is guilty of the exact same charges for **removing **books from the bible.

There is a way to prove either of your charges. Ask your friend if she can produce proof of a Catholic Bible that didn’t include the Deuterocanonicals you will give up.

BUT, if you can provide proof of a KJV Bible that had the Deuterocanonicals, would she aplogize to you for raising false charges. I’ve seen photocopies of KJV Bibles of the 18th or 19th century that included them, but have since been removed.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here’s some ammo, er, information you may find helpful.

This comes from the Catholic Apologetics Network:

***8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its “Introduction to the Apocrypha,” (p.iii). ***

***9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers. ***

***10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) “did not exist,” and wanted to “toss it into the Elbe” river. ***

***11) The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther’s gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon (“chief books”) Hebrews, James (“epistle of straw”), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament “Apocrypha.” He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, “Christ is not taught or known in it.” These opinions are found in Luther’s Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522. ***

13) Ironically, in some of the same verses where the New Testament is virtually quoting the “Apocrypha,” doctrines are taught which are rejected by Protestantism, and which were a major reason why the deuterocanonical books were “demoted” by them. Therefore, it was not as easy to eliminate these disputed doctrines from the Bible as it was (and is) supposed, and Protestants still must grapple with much New Testament data which does not comport with their beliefs. ***
***
14) Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) “useful and good to read.” Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans maintained them in this secondary sense also. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and Bishop’s Bible (1568) both included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 contained the “Apocrypha” as a matter of course. And up to the present time many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Bible (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others.

 

[NotWorthy]

And one more from the same site:

***12) Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:

*** ***Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6} ***
***Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. ***

                         ***{see also  Revelation 5:8} ***

                         ***Tobit 12:15I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.***
                         ***

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology: ***
***
1 Corinthians 15:29Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?***
***
2 Maccabees 12:44For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.***
This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can’t benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The “penance interpretation” is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day, and so forth. ***
***
As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29: ***
***
Hebrews 11:35Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.
***
2 Maccabees 7:29Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers.***
{a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26}

 

[thistle]

Hold the phone ~ ! She’s back and on fire, too!

Here’s her latest: I am curious how you guys/gals would reply. I am going to tackle these straight on apologetically but I’d appreciate any tidbits you want to throw in ~ Thanks

"The last verse of the Bible clearly states that no one is to add or take away from the scripture. If the apocrypha is “inspired text” then how come it’s not in my Bible?
Why was it added years later?
Why do Catholics believe that Mary was without sin, when it clearly says the only one that was without sin was Christ? Because of the phrase, “full of Grace”?
That is a latin mistranslation.

Beyond that, she had children after Jesus.
Why would anyone pray to saints or ask them to pray for you? We are all saints, and the only one person that is omnipresent is God so how could a saint hear someone in NewYork and Africa at the same time?? There are many holes.

I actually didn’t know there were that many holes until I entered that debate and started researching it. Let me ask you this… not to offend… the other books in the Catholic Bible… how is that diffferent from the Mormons that believe that the other books in their Bible are inspired text too?"

Hmm… so she’s saying we have a Latin mistranslation of Mary and that we’ve added books years later.

Load me up guys … give me some fodder here… I’d be grateful.
~kotes19

Rev 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

First there was no bible when John wrote Revelations and what he wrote in these verses is “this book”, meaning the Book of Revelations which he had just written.

 

[DanB]

kotes,
Manny knows his stuff. Calvinator lists himself as a reformer, so he needs to keep reforming until he gets it right.

First of all the septuagint is the Greek text of the Old Testament (7 books) that were written about 200-300 B.C. It was accepted by the Early Church. When the final canon of the New Testament (27 books) were approved in at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. by Pope Damascus, these Greek text were included with the Old Testament and referred to as the Deutro canonical books (Second canon). There was around 150 A.D. several Jewish groups that decided they didn’t want to include the septuagint in the Torah, because they didn’t feel they were inspired. Regardless, the Christian community continued to support them, at least for there historical value.

They have continued to be a part of the Catholic Church and other orthodox churches. The reformers decided 1500 years after the fact that they thought they were false book, thus the term Apocropha, meaning false. Many mainline Protestant groups are now considering adding them back into the KJV.

So the controversy is over just 7 historical books of the Old Testament, which now you know have 3 different identities.

 

[kotes19]

That’s my three fold “thumbs up” appreciation for all of you.
Keep it coming!
I sent her some apologetic answers last night, enough for her to munch on at least for now.

I can’t tell if she just wants to spar and prove herself right (which she cannot do against the Church, sorry) or if she’s just over zealous in her search for Truth. No matter… I will do what I can w/ your help of course and God’s grace to enlighten this spitfire.

Keep it coming …

 

[Calvinator]

There is a way to prove either of your charges. Ask your friend if she can produce proof of a Catholic Bible that didn’t include the Deuterocanonicals you will give up.

Well, the Glossa Ordinaria rejected the canonicity of the so called deutero canonical books. The Gloss was the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the Western Church as a whole. It had immense authority. Just so you don’t think I am making this up we have the following from The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
*
A designation given during the Middle Ages to certain compilations of “glosses” on the text of a given MS. The earliest glossa ordinaria is that made of the Bible, probably made in the 12th century…Although glosses originally consisted of a few words only, they grew in length as glossators enlarged them with their own comments and quotations from the Fathers. Thus the tiny gloss evolved into a running commentary of an entire book. The best–known commentary of this type is the vast Glossa ordinaria of the 12th and 13th centuries…So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on Biblical and philisophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called “the tongue of Scripture” and “the bible of scholasticism” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Glossa Ordinaria; Glosses, Biblical, pp. 515-516).*

The preface to the Glossa ordinaria states that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It goes on to state that there are 22 books of the OT. How many books are in your catholic OT’s?

Also, Cardinal Ximenes produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia in the early sixteenth century. Its preface gives an admonition regarding the Apocrypha. The preface states that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, were not canonical Scripture. This Bible and its Preface was published with the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.

According to Bruce Metzger the earliest Latin version of the Bible in modern times, made from the original languages by the the Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, which included commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, separated the text of the canonical books from the text of the Apocryphal books.

Apparently, according to Metzger there was another Latin Bible, this one an addition of Jerome’s Vulgate published at Nuermberg by Johannes Petreius in 1527, which presented the order of the books as in the Vulgate but stated at the beginning of each Apocryphal book that it is not canonical. Furthermore, in his address to the Christian reader the editor lists the disputed books as ‘Libri Apocryphi, sive non Canonici, qui nusquam apud Hebraeos extant’

The Bibles and commentaries mentioned above don’t seem to give favorable opinion to the so called deutero’s.

 

[Calvinator]

The reformers decided 1500 years after the fact that they thought they were false book, thus the term Apocropha, meaning false.

There were plenty of catholic, at least up until Trent that rejected the apocrypha or so called deutero’s as well. Cardinal Cajetan and Cardinal Ximenes come to mind as well as a host of fathers.

Even Pope Gregory the Great had issues with at least one of the books you guys accept.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Catholic Church used the Septaugent, the Greek translation of the Bible (or Scriptures – in those days, each book of the Bible was a separate scroll.)

Saint Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (the language of the people, the “Vulgate.”) In the process, he learned Hebrew, so he could translate the Old Testament directly. He was exposed to Jewish ideas that the Deuterocanonical books – some of which were not composed in Hebrew – were not properly scripture. The Pope told him to leave the canon alone – the Church had accepted those books in the time of Christ and the Apostles and he, Jerome, had no authority to change that.

 

[Calvinator]

The Catholic Church used the Septaugent, the Greek translation of the Bible (or Scriptures – in those days, each book of the Bible was a separate scroll.)

Saint Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (the language of the people, the “Vulgate.”) In the process, he learned Hebrew, so he could translate the Old Testament directly. He was exposed to Jewish ideas that the Deuterocanonical books – some of which were not composed in Hebrew – were not properly scripture. The Pope told him to leave the canon alone – the Church had accepted those books in the time of Christ and the Apostles and he, Jerome, had no authority to change that.

The use of the septuagint doesn’t help your case.

The septuagint also included Maccabees 3 and 4 which you reject.

The earlier councils apparently weren’t binding upon the church as a whole or else an awful lot of catholics including Pope Gregory, Augustine, Cajetan, and Ximenes willingly rejected the councils authority.