Apocrypha

[Jerry_Parker]

Joe Kelley,

**You wrote: *** Note also that the Deuterocanonicals contain some of the best prophecies of the Messiah.

For example: ** Wisdom 2:12-20 *** Quote:*

12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child* of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”

One can see why the Jews rejected it; it is more difficult to see why Christians would reject it. *​

Good comments, even a bit surprising! Well, of course, among Christians, apart from someone with the eccentric opinion of Saint Jerome (who was unusually “buddy-buddy” with Jewish scholars), almost none in the early Church rejected the Deuterocanonical Writings (so-called ‘Apocrypha’) of the Old Testament.

I read someplace that one reason the Talmudists and other Jews rejected the ‘Apocrypha’ was due to the popularity of some of the deuterocanonical writings among Christians, whose ethical monotheism contrasts with the prevailingly brutish amorality and ethics-hostile, ethnically exclusivist tribalism of the Talmudists. In addition to The Wisdom of Solomon, of course, there is Sirach (‘Ecclesiasticus’, not to be confused with Ecclesiastes), full of good and sound moral advice for conducting one’s worldly and spiritual life.

There are extremely explicit prophecies of Jesus in 4th Esdras (called “2nd Esdras” in the Authorised “King James” Bible’s Apocrypha), but these are less credible, since there apparently is so much evidence that 4 Esdras was, at least in part, written during early Christian times. (It was 4 Esdras’ implication of the Earth’s roundness that inspired Columbus to sail across the Atlantic Ocean; he could have known the same matter from the indubitably canonical book of Job.) The Catholic Church was wise to exclude 4 Esdras from the Catholic Canon of Holy Scripture, though it did permit it to be printed in the appendix to the Clementine Latin Vulgate Bible, along with some other writings that appear in the Clementine Vulgate’s appendix and in the A.V. Bible, but not in the Apocrypha to Luther’s version of the Bible’s Apocrypha. An early manuscript source for 4 Esdras even includes a rare and doctrinally questionable segment which forbids prayers for the dead, which seems to have appeared translated and included in an English Bible version for the first time in the late 19th Century’s Revised Version’s Apocrypha (the British forerunner of the American Standard Version, which, however, did not include the Apocrypha), all the more reason for the Catholic Church to have omitted that segment even in the Clementine Vulgate’s appendix.

The moral teachings of the book of Sirach were so influential and popular among Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Christians that the Jews took offense to that book, and to the deuterocanonicals generally, in reaction to Christians.

It took the likes of the Reformers, those boys with bright ideas and little sense of responsability to Christ’s Church, to join in with the Talmudists and other Jews (who rejected Our Lord and Saviour Jesus) in either relegating the ‘Apocrypha’ to a separate section of their Bibles or omitting these writings altogether.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[ClaudiaTN]

I am looking for the reason that the Jews removed these books from their Bible. I have used Maccabees as a defense for the existance of Purgatory but since my fallen away friend doesn’t accept Mcc I need addtiional data to protect my defense. Any suggestions?

Hello,
Here is a website that might help you with your Purgatory discussion.
scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

This is a good website that might help with your “Apocrypha” discussion. It appears removing those books from the protestant Bibles happened after the orginal King James Version was produced in 1611–even King James instructed they should not be removed.
catholicapologetics.net/apolo_54.htm

As for why the Jews rejected them? I do not know. But, the Jews also rejected the Gospels too.
Good luck and let us know how it turns out.
Claudia

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Claudia,

**You wrote: ** This is a good website that might help with your “Apocrypha” discussion. It appears removing those books from the protestant Bibles happened after the orginal King James Version was produced in 1611 – even King James instructed they should not be removed: catholicapologetics.net/apolo_54.htm​

Wow! What is on the link in your message is a marvellously comprehensive (but not excessively long) defense of the real intentions of the translators of the venerable and lovely Authorised “King James” Version of the Bible, with its Apocrypha (i.e. with the deuterocanonical writings of the Old Testament)! You supplied the link, and I urge all to read it! It is hardly a wonder that the U.S. bishops have endorsed use (among other versions) of the A.V. (K.J.V.) Bible (with, I assume, its Apocrpha, available currently in numerous editions, to those who seek it out diligently in finer book stores or on the WWW, e.g. Amazon’s various national sites).

Jerry Parker

 

[garysibio]

I remember learning that one of the reasons there was the whole debate over the Deuterocanonical books were that they weren’t found written in Hebrew (until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found) and that was the reason they were labeled apocryphal by non-Catholic denominations and why there was the whole debate about them being accepted or not.

There is a lot of things found in the Deuterocanonical books not found anywhere else, such as the angel Raphael.

What I find odd about the Jews not including these is how some of their traditions are found in the Deuterocanonical books, such as Hanukkah being found only in Maccabees.

We have Hebrew (or Aramaic) copies of some of them but not all. I also remember reading once that St. Jerome reported having a Hebrew copy of one of the books for which no Hebrew copy is currently known.

It shouldn’t be that surprising that the Jews celebrate Hannukah even if it’s not in their Bibles. They don’t believe in sola scriptura.

 

[NotWorthy]

We have Hebrew (or Aramaic) copies of some of them but not all. I also remember reading once that St. Jerome reported having a Hebrew copy of one of the books for which no Hebrew copy is currently known.

It shouldn’t be that surprising that the Jews celebrate Hannukah even if it’s not in their Bibles. They don’t believe in sola scriptura.

St. Jerome had an Aramaic version of Matthew. This may be what you are thinking of. He tended to disbelieve in the canonicity of the Deutero’s because:

a) He said they were never written in Hebrew (this proved to be false after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
b) He grew up in Palestine and studied the Old Testament Scriptures with mostly Jewish scholars. Their bias against the Deutero’s would seem to have rubbed off on him.

But I never heard of him claiming to have a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of any of the Deutero’s.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, the Jews never included them in their Scriptures, so how could they take them out?

The Palestinian Jews did not,this is true. However, we can see that the Pharisees and Saducees made many such errors, and did not receive the correction of Christ. Why would you side with those who rejected Him, and His authority over what constitutes scripture?

In regard to using 2 Macc to defend Purgatory, this doesn’t work anyway. If you read the reference carefully, you’ll find that the men who were killed were killed by God because of their idolatry (isn’t that a “mortal sin”?). The sin offering was a nice gesture, but there is no indication that it had any real value to those who they were made for.

I think of itself,it is a rather weak defense of Purgatory. What is of much more value is that Jesus and the Apostles accepted and used the Deuterocanonicals. Since Jesus embraced them, so we do. We do not conform to those who rejected Him.

 

[garysibio]

St. Jerome had an Aramaic version of Matthew. This may be what you are thinking of. He tended to disbelieve in the canonicity of the Deutero’s because:

a) He said they were never written in Hebrew (this proved to be false after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
b) He grew up in Palestine and studied the Old Testament Scriptures with mostly Jewish scholars. Their bias against the Deutero’s would seem to have rubbed off on him.

But I never heard of him claiming to have a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of any of the Deutero’s.

I found out what it was. Jerome had an Aramaic copy of Tobit.

 

[NotWorthy]

I found out what it was. Jerome had an Aramaic copy of Tobit.

Now THAT I did not know.

Thanks!

 

[zapaleda]

Problems with the Doctrine of Purgatory
As a Christian who bases spiritual truth on the Bible alone, I see problems with the doctrine of purgatory. For example:

It is not explicitly found in the Bible.
It implies that the righteousness of Christ does not cleanse from all sin.
It implies that justification is not by faith alone.
It implies that there is something we must do in order to be cleansed of sin.
The Catholics will disagree with my perceived problems of the doctrine of purgatory. That is to be expected. They will cite church Fathers, the apocrypha, and various biblical references to fire and purification. Which ever side of the argument you fall into, my goal here is to present a biblical argument that examines the doctrine in an attempt to determine if it is biblical or not.

Of course, the Catholic will say that as a Protestant, I come to the argument with the preconceived belief that (1) Purgatory is unbiblical, (2) that I am biased against it, and (3) that I have an agenda to accomplish. To each of these accusations I admit guilt. None of us are perfectly unbiased and most everyone has personal beliefs that are reflected in their actions and words. In this case, having read and studied the Bible thoroughly, I find no place in it for the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

 

[Cbailey2]

Hi zapaleda,

In this case, having read and studied the Bible thoroughly, I find no place in it for the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

Just out of curiosity, what bible did you read and study and did it include the deuterocanonicals?

Of course, the Catholic will say that as a Protestant, I come to the argument with the preconceived belief that (1) Purgatory is unbiblical, (2) that I am biased against it, and (3) that I have an agenda to accomplish. To each of these accusations I admit guilt. None of us are perfectly unbiased and most everyone has personal beliefs that are reflected in their actions and words.

I appreciate your admission of bias - we should all be willing to admit that tradition (be they of men or God) colors our reading and understanding of scripture. The difference is most catholics are unwilling to stand on their personal beliefs alone, but instead turn to the Church for a proper orientation.

It is not explicitly found in the Bible.

Nor is the Trinity. Or sola scriptura for that matter. I assume you don’t have problems with either of those.

It implies that the righteousness of Christ does not cleanse from all sin.

With all due respect, it doesn’t. We don’t believe a person in purgatory purges themselves from sin anymore than you do. Anyone cleansed in purgatory is sanctified by God through Christ. Our difference of opinion then is less a matter of “how” then “when.”

It implies that justification is not by faith alone.

By faith alone is nowhere in the Bible either, unless you are referring to James 2:24. Obviously, we disagree on this one because of those biases we’re all applying to scripture.

It implies that there is something we must do in order to be cleansed of sin.

I’ve never understood that a soul in purgatory must do anything. We cannot cleanse our own souls - only God can do that. And because sin seems to stain worse than red wine on white carpet, I think it’s fair to anticipate a cleansing process involving the elbow grease of God after we die (disclaimer: that analogy doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible).

The Catholics will disagree with my perceived problems of the doctrine of purgatory. That is to be expected. They will cite church Fathers, the apocrypha, and various biblical references to fire and purification. Which ever side of the argument you fall into, my goal here is to present a biblical argument that examines the doctrine in an attempt to determine if it is biblical or not.

Yes, we do disagree. But we are bound to do that considering you’re writing with few less letters in your alphabet. The Catholic argument is biblical - it just depends on what Bible you are using. I guess the core question is: by what authority do you judge the deuterocanonicals to be apocrypha? Yours or the Reformers?

 

[NotWorthy]

Problems with the Doctrine of Purgatory
As a Christian who bases spiritual truth on the Bible alone, I see problems with the doctrine of purgatory. For example:

It is not explicitly found in the Bible.

Before I continue with the post, isn’t this an oxymoron?

“I base spiritual truth on the bible alone, and then I question something that is not explicitly found in the bible”.

Where in the Bible does it say that all Spiritual Truth is found in the Bible?

 

[NotWorthy]

A) It implies that the righteousness of Christ does not cleanse from all sin.
B) It implies that justification is not by faith alone.
C) It implies that there is something we must do in order to be cleansed of sin.

A) How does it imply this? It is Christ’s Love and Mercy that provides the cleansing. Purgatory doesn’t “do an end around” Christ’s cleansing.
B) The Bible implies (no, it states) that justification is not by faith alone.
C) We must do something in order to be cleansed of sin. Acts 2:38 certainly claims this.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

One technic that can render inclusion of the deuterocanonical writings of the Old Testament (O.T.) in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and oecumenical published Bibles in a way that can calm the ruffled feathers of Protestants but without compromising Catholic principal, is to do as Alexandre Falco did in editing the Bible in French for a mass market publisher. Falco’s approach makes the famous and popular Protestant Louis Segond version in French available for Catholics and Orthodox readers to use. Falco adds the books and other passages of the O.T. deuterocanonical writings to the O.T. of Segond’s translation in its most widely accepted text (that of 1910), in these writings’ traditional and usual places in the Catholic Bible, but Falco offsets them visually by printing deuterocanonical writings in Italics, included from the great classic translation of Louis-Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy (since Louis Segond never translated them). This way the deuterocanonical (or “Apocryphal”) writings appear in their natural sequence, but in a way that a Protestant reader readily can identify them as part of the Protestant O.T. Apocrypha and that a Catholic can recognise them as deuterocanonical.

For those who read French but are unfamiliar with this lovely paperback edition of the French Bible (available new or used on Amazon.ca or Amazon.fr), here is a citation (in ISBD style):

La Bible / éditeur, Alexandre Falco ; cette édition … a été réalisée à partir de deux traductions, pour la plus grande partie … de la traduction de Louis Segond (1910) … [et pour] la traduction de … livres [et autres portions des écrits] … deutérocanoniques … chez Lemaistre de Sacy. – [Paris?] : Succès du Livre, 2007. – 1334 p. – (Maxi-poches : Sagesse). – ISBN: 9-782743147-1. – Title and statement of responsability formulated from the t.p. and the “Avant-propos”. – A variant earlier pressing with the same ISBN and in the same series, which differs only in cover design and lack of an “Avant-propos”, bears the imprint: [Paris?] : Maxi-livres, 2002.

Pax!

Jerry Parker

 

[ajcstr]

For what its worth, this paragraph is on the “Bible answer man”'s site which I guess would summarize a traditional non-catholic view:

Now, there are many reasons why these apocryphal books are not part of our Bible. Let me mention just a few. First of all, they contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical — for example, they encourage prayers for the dead, teach salvation by works, and they even include an account where God is shown to be assisting someone in a lie. Second, there have been a number of authoritative testimonies against the acceptance of these books, including those from the Jewish scholars of Jamnia, as well as many of the church fathers and scholars, like Athanasius and Jerome. And, of course, these books were never directly quoted by Jesus or by any of the New Testament writers. Finally, it’s important to note that even the Catholic church itself didn’t canonize them until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation began.

equip.org/perspectives/the-apocrypha

As a side note, he mentions Jerome. My understanding is that when St Jerome was asked to translate the bible into Latin, The OT was to be a translation from Hebrew rather than Greek. He could not find (and I know this is oversimplified - like he could do a web search or something) the Hebrew versions of the deuteros so he questioned if they should be included in the bible. So he translated these to Latin from the Greek and included them with the assumption that the writers of the Septuigent must have had the Hebrew versions, after all they were Jewish scholars. Luthor supposedly cited Jerome as having an issue with these books also, but they WERE included in the Vulgate. Since that time fragments of many of the deuteros have been found among the dead sea scrolls proving they did exist in Hebrew.

I’m not sure if this was an anecdotal story or not, so if anyone can verify that they read this somewhere, please post (I got it from a tape I was listing to). If this is true, I don’t know how anyone can argue that these books are not scripture and I would be curious about the bible answer man’s claim that they were not in the cannon until Trent. I believe this is false also. (council of Nicea or Hippo ???)

 

[David_Zampino]

Actually, the Jews never included them in their Scriptures, so how could they take them out? In regard to using 2 Macc to defend Purgatory, this doesn’t work anyway. If you read the reference carefully, you’ll find that the men who were killed were killed by God because of their idolatry (isn’t that a “mortal sin”?). The sin offering was a nice gesture, but there is no indication that it had any real value to those who they were made for.

Historically, this is just not an accurate statement.

These books were widely used in the Alexandrian Jewish community.

At the time of Christ, there was no fixed Jewish Canon. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah – the Law of Moses as Canon. The Pharisees accepted the Law and the Prophets – and the Prophets in this context referred to the so-called “Former Prophets” – Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel and I and II Kings – and the “Latter Prophets” – Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Scroll of the Twelve – the Minor Prophets. The third section of the Hebrew Scriptures, the “Writings” were still very much in flux in the 1st century AD, although the Psalms were almost certainly accepted (or at least widely used).

The Jewish Canon was not fixed until the end of the 1st century – and the point of view of the Hebrew-speaking rabbis won out over the point of view of the Greek-speaking rabbis.

 

[David_Zampino]

Now THAT I did not know.

Thanks!

Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that an Aramaic fragment from Tobit has been found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[David_Zampino]

For what its worth, this paragraph is on the “Bible answer man”'s site which I guess would summarize a traditional non-catholic view:

*Now, there are many reasons why these apocryphal books are not part of our Bible. Let me mention just a few. First of all, they contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical — for example, they encourage prayers for the dead, teach salvation by works, and they even include an account where God is shown to be assisting someone in a lie. Second, there have been a number of authoritative testimonies against the acceptance of these books, including those from the Jewish scholars of Jamnia, as well as many of the church fathers and scholars, like Athanasius and Jerome. And, of course, these books were never directly quoted by Jesus or by any of the New Testament writers. Finally, it’s important to note that even the Catholic church itself didn’t canonize them until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation began. *

If this is true, I don’t know how anyone can argue that these books are not scripture and I would be curious about the bible answer man’s claim that they were not in the cannon until Trent. I believe this is false also. (council of Nicea or Hippo ???)

The Canon of Scripture was discussed at numerous regional, though not ecumenical councils and synods in Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the last decades of the 4th and first decades of the 5th centuries. The first Ecumenical Council to explicitly enumerate the specific books of the Canon of Scripture is the Council of Florence, etc., which met before the Reformation. Trent made explicit – again – what had been previously taught and believed.

The notion that Trent “added” to Scripture is oft repeated, but is patently false – as even a cursory examination of the Councils can demonstrate.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
Now, there are many reasons why these apocryphal books are not part of our Bible. Let me mention just a few. First of all, they contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical — for example, they encourage prayers for the dead, teach salvation by works, and they even include an account where God is shown to be assisting someone in a lie. . . .?)

They are excluded from the Bible because they are unBiblical. That sounds typical of the Bible Answer Man’s reasoning.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Joe,

**You and ajcstr wrote: ajcstr: Now, there are many reasons why these [A]pocryphal books are not part of our Bible. Let me mention just a few. First of all, they contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical — for example, they encourage prayers for the dead, teach salvation by works, and they even include an account where God is shown to be assisting someone in a lie. . . .?)

**Joe: **[You are saying that t]hey are excluded from the Bible because they are unBiblical. That sounds typical of the Bible Answer Man’s reasoning. **​

Yes, Joe! Essentially there is some circular reasoning going on here on the part of the Protestants and sectaries. They exclude the Deuterocanon (so-called “Apocrypha”) of the O.T. because some of the teachings therein they consider to be “unbiblical” – but that is only because they have torn from the Bible the passages that refer to those doctrines! Talk about “cooking the books” (in this case, The Book of Books). As for the morality judgments about what transpires here and there in Judith and Tobit, such views are those of Fundies who do not allow for casuistry properly considered (i.e. in the best sense).

Jerry Parker

 

[benedictus2]

Joe,

You and ajcstr wrote: ajcstr*: Now, there are many reasons why these [A]pocryphal books are not part of our Bible. Let me mention just a few. First of all, they contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical — for example, they encourage prayers for the dead, teach salvation by works, and they even include an account where God is shown to be assisting someone in a lie. . . .?) *

***Joe: ***[You are saying that t]hey are excluded from the Bible because they are unBiblical. That sounds typical of the Bible Answer Man’s reasoning.​

Yes, Joe! Essentially there is some circular reasoning going on here on the part of the Protestants and sectaries. They exclude the Deuterocanon (so-called “Apocrypha”) of the O.T. because some of the teachings therein they consider to be “unbiblical” – but that is only because they have torn from the Bible the passages that refer to those doctrines! Talk about “cooking the books” (in this case, The Book of Books). As for the morality judgments about what transpires here and there in Judith and Tobit, such views are those of Fundies who do not allow for casuistry properly considered (i.e. in the best sense).

Jerry Parker

Very well said.