Apocrypha

[ajcstr]

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

Quote the man correctly - “CLEARLY unbiblical” LOL

 

[Jerry_Parker]

ajcstr,

**You and Joe Kelley wrote: *Joe: * They are excluded from the Bible because they are unBiblical. That sounds typical of the Bible Answer Man’s reasoning.

**ajcstr: **Quote the man correctly - “CLEARLY unbiblical” LOL **​

Joe Kelley did not put his statement in quotes, therefore he cannot be accused of quoting the so-called Bible Answer Man incorrectly. Joe rather referred to what the said B.A.M. wrote and did not misrepresent him, neither quote nor misrepresentation being involved in the reference. Let’s keep our accusations correct! Also, let us deal with each other as charitably as possible, without, of course, sacrificing truthfulness.

Jerry Parker

 

[juliamajor]

there is such much more in the Deuteros than just prayers for the dead and purgatory.Maccabees is full of information about the cultural,societal ,political and religious dynamics that are so prominent in the NT.If you read them for nothing else, read them for an insight into Jesus’ era.

 

[juliamajor]

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 ???)

Bible Bozo might be a more apt title then the Bible answer man.never quoted directly in theNT precludes many books of OT and includes as scripture quoted in jude(enoch)-which is uncanonical by all standards

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

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.

The verse intends to show that prayers for the dead have been offered since ancient times, St Augustine refers to this verse to justify praying for the dead. the KJV 1611 note of Hebrews 11:35 cross references 2 Maccabees.

“because of their idolatry (isn’t that a “mortal sin”?).” <=====no, not necessarily, nothing in the text says the committed idolatry, they fought on the side of Israel, had they committed idolatry I doubt they would have been prayed for, they were simply told not to wear the amulet since it was used among the pagans, if anything the Jewish warriors wore it as a sort of good luck charm, and for this they were killed.

The Jews did not establish a uniform Hebrew bible until after Christianity had been established. The Sadducees had a limited canon, most think it was only the 5 books of the Law, the Pharisees had different canons, The School of Rabbi Hillel and the School of Shammai disagreed on what books belonged, the School of Hillel accepted Ecclesiates, whereas Shammai did not. The New Testament seems to not decide on a canon other than its not that of the Sadducees.

Rabbinical scholars do believe the Gospels do refer to books like Wisdom and the Maccabees.

The Canon of the Old and New Testament was decided by Catholic bishops gathering, and the one decided on in the 3 and 4th centuries was the Canon the Catholic Church has today.

The “deutrocanonicals” were regarded as scriptures by the early Christians. Pope Clement of Rome in the late 1st century, Polycarp, the Didache both written early 2nd century, these quote the deutrocanonical books. cin.org/users/jgallegos/deutero.htm

The chief objection to purgatory by Protestant is 1) denies the false atonement belief of Calvinism (ie Christ paid the penalty of the elect’s sins) 2) it’s not explicitly found in scriptures THEY accept 3) they think it goes against their antibiblical belief in “faith alone” for justification. 4) it affirms that there are venial and mortal sins.

Many Protestants particularly Calvinists/Reformed ones are opposed to it, some even suggest the belief is Pelagian! The irony to that is Pelagius was suspected of being a heretic by Bishops because he DENIED purgatory, and St Augustine (a Calvinist favorite) taught purgatory and he was the ultimate antiPelagian. (see Augustine’s Retractions to read the inquisition of Pelagius in Palestine being accused of denying purgatory)

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

"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.

Jamnia was post Christian rabbinical council, they wanted books in Hebrew to be in the canon. Many Church Fathers? actually many Church Father did accept these books as canonical. St Jerome was influenced by the Jews be studied with, he initially disputed the books because they were not in Hebrew, however later on St Jerome did accept these books as scripture a quotes them a few times in his writings, as well as St Athanasius.
See this website for examples: matt1618.freeyellow.com/chapter2.html

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."

I have read Protestants admit there are some old testament books that are never “directly quoted by Jesus or by any of the New Testament writers” and they included Ecclesiates and Ezra. The New Testament does seem to allude to Ecclesiates and the Deutros however.
Councils from the 3-5th centuries recognized these books, as mentioned previously Florence had a 72 book canon and it was preReformation.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Juulia Major,

**You wrote: ** Bible Bozo [Julia’s very fitting name for the “Bible Answer Man”] might be a more apt title then the Bible answer man.never quoted directly in theNT precludes many books of OT and includes as scripture quoted in Jude (Enoch) – which is uncanonical by all standards.​

Well, not quite so utterly – though this is of little concern to most of the world’s Christians, us Catholics and Orthodox included. From what I have read, that writing attributed to Enoch is part of the Coptic canon of Holy Scripture, the largest body of canonically sanctioned scripture in any of the historic churches of any importance, which goes well beyond even the Eastern Orthodox canon (itself larger than the Catholic canon of the O.T.) so far as the Old Testament is concerned, perhaps a reason that Enoch has survived the attrition of the ages as well as it has.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[InspiritCarol]

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

Having read and studied the bible thoroughly, you should also, then have problems with the Trinity, with the pro-life stance on abortion and with monogamy. Please let God out of this poorly constructed box called the protestant bible that you’ve placed him. The bible is a fantastic means to hear his Word but to limit all of creation and every little detail of His intent and meaning to a few thousand pages should seem ridiculous to the truly thoughtful.

We live on a farm surrounded by the most wonderful spirit-filled protestants. They’re coming around slowly and gently, as God intended. The explanation of Purgatory that worked well for them is that Purgatory is the mud-room of heaven. When we die, yes, Christ died for our sins and they’ve been cleansed, this you know. But what that doesn’t account for are the things we hold on to so desperately that keep us from God. We must be pure to be with God. Is God so merciless that we’re denied heaven because we identify ourselves as (for example) gossips? To say that would be far more “unbiblical” than to acknowledge our Father’s infinite mercy and patience and his ability to give us a place to adjust before we’re confronted by the full magnificence of His glory.

The most important question you need to ask yourself is: if the Bible is the end-all be-all in defining God and God’s desires for humankind, why is it that not once, not one single time, did Jesus command his disciples to write down what he was saying? Why didn’t Jesus commission the Bible? Why didn’t he write it himself?

The answer I came to, is that it’s because God knew the dark hole that we humans fall into when we close our hearts to God and follow any false idol, be it a false prophet, a graven image or a book that contains all the good news in the world. A book, no matter how beautiful and diverse and knowledgeable, is still just a book and must always take a back seat to God Almighty.

It amazes me at the hypocrisy of the sola scriptura people that accuse the Catholics of worshiping false Gods and idols when we seek intercession from Saints, yet they quickly bow their knees and wills and spirits before the Almighty, All-knowing, All-powerful and most importantly, infallible Bible.

 

[LanD]

Having read and studied the bible thoroughly, you should also, then have problems with the Trinity, with the pro-life stance on abortion and with monogamy. Please let God out of this poorly constructed box called the protestant bible that you’ve placed him. The bible is a fantastic means to hear his Word but to limit all of creation and every little detail of His intent and meaning to a few thousand pages should seem ridiculous to the truly thoughtful.

We live on a farm surrounded by the most wonderful spirit-filled protestants. They’re coming around slowly and gently, as God intended. The explanation of Purgatory that worked well for them is that Purgatory is the mud-room of heaven. When we die, yes, Christ died for our sins and they’ve been cleansed, this you know. But what that doesn’t account for are the things we hold on to so desperately that keep us from God. We must be pure to be with God. Is God so merciless that we’re denied heaven because we identify ourselves as (for example) gossips? To say that would be far more “unbiblical” than to acknowledge our Father’s infinite mercy and patience and his ability to give us a place to adjust before we’re confronted by the full magnificence of His glory.

The most important question you need to ask yourself is: if the Bible is the end-all be-all in defining God and God’s desires for humankind, why is it that not once, not one single time, did Jesus command his disciples to write down what he was saying? Why didn’t Jesus commission the Bible? Why didn’t he write it himself?

The answer I came to, is that it’s because God knew the dark hole that we humans fall into when we close our hearts to God and follow any false idol, be it a false prophet, a graven image or a book that contains all the good news in the world. A book, no matter how beautiful and diverse and knowledgeable, is still just a book and must always take a back seat to God Almighty.

It amazes me at the hypocrisy of the sola scriptura people that accuse the Catholics of worshiping false Gods and idols when we seek intercession from Saints, yet they quickly bow their knees and wills and spirits before the Almighty, All-knowing, All-powerful and most importantly, infallible Bible.

well said

 

[SFH]

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.

There are actually a number of references to Purgatory in the Holy Bible. St. Paul says “they shall be saved, but they shall be saved by fire.” Catholic exegetics understood St. Paul to mean that certain Christians would be saved through a purifying fire (i.e., Purgatory). Also, Christ says that the sinner shall be cast into prison and shall not be released until he has paid the last penny. Again, Catholic exegetics have understood the prison to refer to death or Purgatory. Christ also says that there are some sins that will not be forgiven either in this world or the next, implying that there is remission from sins (or at least the pains of sin) in the next world. And finally, there is the pasage in Machabees.

On a related note, I was checking out Catholic schools yesterday for my oldest daughter (4 years old), and the principal took us to one classroom where the canon of Old Testament scripture was posted on the wall. I asked the principal why the deuterocanonical books were not included on the list. The teacher overheard me, became very agitated, and informed me that “we Catholics” don’t accept those books. I didn’t have time to engage her, nor did I want to correct her publicly in front of her students, BUT I’m begging everyone who reads this post (Catholics and Protestants), in the interests of academic honesty, please make sure that you have the facts straight. Catholics DO accept the deuterocanonical books, based in part on their reception by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo and the early Church Fathers, and based in part on the solemn definition of the Catholic Canon at the Council of Trent. Those books are Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, 1 Machabees, 2 Machabees, Baruch, portions of Daniel, and portions of Esther.

There are scholarly arguments to be made in favor of both the Catholic’s position and the Protestant’s position, and neither position is the “liberal” or “conservative” point of view, but let’s not muddy the waters and suggest to our Catholic children that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept the deuterocanonical books.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Zapaleda,

**You wrote: ** [L]*et’s not muddy the waters and suggest to our Catholic children that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept the deuterocanonical books. *​

Good sentiment! Perhaps one good way, if the family reads from the Bible (and it should, whether together or individually, parents encouraging the children), is to read from the deuterocanonical books, among the others of the Old Testament, to read them aloud if you can. Boys would thrill to the exploits recounted in the books of Maccabees, to give one example, as girls might do so in reading and/or hearing of Judith’s exploits (or the foolishness of Holofernes, after he had accomplished such military feats. (“Wow! A girl defeated him! What an idiot!” I can hear, in my mind’s ear, the little guy say that scornfully about the big brute.) in the case of boys who listen or read about Judith). Then there is Tobit’s little dog! The children could read about that affectionate dog and imagine other things that the pooch did with Tobit and how it reacted caninely and loyally to them. There are many possibilities.

Of course, do not overdo the deuterocanonical books to the neglect of the others, but do not act as if the deuterocanon does not exist, either. But do something practical; if a Protestant gives your child a Bible without the “Apocrypha”, e.g. an Authorised King James Version Bible (A.V.) without that version’s “Apocrypha”, give him or her another one yourself, even an A.V. Bible that rightly includes its “Apocrypha”, which includes the deuterocanonical books. Above all, do not leave it to the teachers alone (and some, as found, are more than a little ignorant, others too afflicted with modernist errors and sympathies, even all too often in Catholic schools) to teach children about the Bible, the Catholic Bible.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[ajcstr]

Catholics DO accept the deuterocanonical books, based in part on their reception by the Councils of Carthage and Hippo and the early Church Fathers, and based in part on the solemn definition of the Catholic Canon at the Council of Trent. Those books are Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, 1 Machabees, 2 Machabees, Baruch, portions of Daniel, and portions of Esther.

Last time I checked my NAB which is of couse a Catholic Bible, these books are simply part of the Old Testament, not even in a seperate section. I don’t understand why WE even refer to them as anything other than Old Testament books.

 

[Jason_1977]

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?

Isaiah Ch6, the 1st 15 verses.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

ajcstr

*You wrote: *** Last time I checked my NAB which is of couse a Catholic Bible, these books are simply part of the Old Testament, not even in a seperate section. I don’t understand why WE even refer to them as anything other than Old Testament books.​

Well, for that matter, even a properly presented edition of the Authorised “King James” Version Bible (A.V.) with “Apocrypha” does not relegate the deuterocanonical books to a “separate section” with its own title page to offset it from the “real” Old Testament. For example, my old and trusty Oxford University Press edition of the A.V. simply prints the deuterocanonical books that it includes (a bit more than what is in most Catholic Bibles, unless they include the contents of the Clementine Vulgate Latin Bible’s appendix, which most Catholic Bibles, even in Latin, do not) at the end of the Old Testament; there is a bold-faced heading “Apocrypha” atop the page on which the first of these writings also begins just below it, but the deuterocanonical writings follow after that heading rather than after a separate title page, as there is for the New Testament section.

Clearly the A.V. Bible regarded the “Apocrypha” as a section (a deuterocanonical one, whatever the term used) of the Old Testament (as are sections for the Penteteuch, the Historical Books, the Wisdom Writings, and the Major and Minor Prophets are), not as something extrinsic to the Old Testament. After all, the A.V. is an Anglican Bible, not a more rankly Protestant or downright sectarian one.

The term “deuterocanonical” may reflect slightly on the canonicity of these writings. Perhaps the distinction ought not to be made, as the Eastern Orthodox mostly do not seem to do so. It seems to me that the term is useful, though.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Jason_1977]

Last time I checked my NAB which is of couse a Catholic Bible, these books are simply part of the Old Testament, not even in a seperate section. I don’t understand why WE even refer to them as anything other than Old Testament books.

I see it precisely the same way. I only use the word deuterocanon in response to someone who calls tobit & the like, Apocraphytic. I inform them that the GOSPEL according to JAMES is apocrypha, hence, it is not between one cover & the other in canon. I also own the 1611 KJV as well as the DOUAY-RHEIMS/Challoner version. 2 bibles I recommend having. DRV for my comparison of modern text & the 1611 KJV to see how old certain protestant arguements are. Some trace back to the 15-1600’s and some are more recent. It’s eveident because some texts mirror that of the DRV. It’s very interesting. I’ve got the St. Jerome bug, LOL. Anyway, I’m about to read hebrews…our priest told us to read hebrews & James for next sunday. Can you believe it? THAT is why I love this priest. He’s a retired Army Chaplain. Has a US flag in the church opposite the vatican one. Awesome! God bless!!!

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jason,
**
You wrote: ** I also own the 1611 KJV as well as the DOUAY-RHEIMS/Challoner version, the two bibles which I recommend having, the DR-C Version for my comparison of modern text & the 1611 KJV to see how old certain Protestant arguments are. Some trace back to the 1500s-1600’s, even if some are more recent. It’s evident because some texts mirror that of the DRV. It’s very interesting…​

Jason, Your taste in Bible versions is impeccable, opting as you do for the supremely best Protestant (really, Anglican) Bible in English, the Authorised “King James” Version, and the incontestably best Roman Catholic one in English, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version.

*You also wrote: *** I love this priest. He’s a retired Army Chaplain. Has an U.S. flag in the church opposite the Vatican one. Awesome!​

Well, that’s more debatable, from a northerly consideration! Up here in Québec and the Dominion of Canada, we think that the Vatican flag goes more honourably and suitably with our Québec fleur-de-lis flag and the Canadian maple leaf flag. Well, gringos will be gringos, down your way! L.O.L.

Pax quebecquensus (or whatever), Jerry Parker

 

[mr_natural]

well said

I’m so thankful and hopeful for what you said here LanD. I’m a believer in the God given power of our intellect when directed by the truth of our Church. I’m so very optimistic that Protestants will be swayed by the arguments put forth here because, to my simple mind, it all fits. The good Lord taught in parables and tis my belief that we can still come closest to understanding his grand plan in simple (mud room analagy) parables.

Mr-Natural

 

[ajcstr]

Jason,
**
You wrote: ** I also own the 1611 KJV as well as the DOUAY-RHEIMS/Challoner version, the two bibles which I recommend having, the DR-C Version for my comparison of modern text & the 1611 KJV to see how old certain Protestant arguments are. Some trace back to the 1500s-1600’s, even if some are more recent. It’s evident because some texts mirror that of the DRV. It’s very interesting…

What is the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version? How can it be identified?

I may be getting confused with the Confraternity Version so same question for this version.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

ajcstr,

**You wrote: ** *What is the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version? How can it be identified? I may be getting confused with the Confraternity Version so same question for this version. *​

There is much concerning this subject on the various C.A. fora, the Catholic Encyclopedia which C.A. makes available, etc.; just use the search feature of C.A. for the fora or for the entire site, and you will find much in answer to your question about the Douay-Rheims-Challoner and the Confraternity Version Bibles, so I won’t go into too great length in replying to your question here.

The Douay-Rheims Version was the one prepared in the late 16th century for English speaking recusants (Catholics) in the British Isles by Catholic scholars in exile. The saintly and learned Bp. Richard Challoner revised it to marvellous effect, making the Douay-Rheims Bible much more elegantly readable and literary in style. Challoner left to posterity several revisions of his work on the Douay-Rheims Version (D.-R.-C.), which accounts for variants in different editions of it which have appeared over the years in the U.K. and in North America.

The Confraternity Version (the initial and superior version of the Bible prepared under the auspices of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) set out initially to be a revision to update the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. Like the D.-R.-C., it took its point of departure, in revising the New Testament (N.T.), from the Latin of the Clementine Latin Vulgate Bible, with some consultation of the Greek N.T. The N.T. of this Confraternity Version appeared in 1941; the revisers then set about translating the Old Testament (O.T.), with preference accorded to the Hebrew and Aramaic texts (apart, of course, for the deuterocanonical writings, which survive mostly in Greek and Latin) rather than primarily to the Latin Vulgate. By 1969 the Confraternity Version was completed and made available very briefly on the market. Previous to its completion, Confraternity Version Bibles would include the text of the D.-R.-C. for the O.T. writings to fill out the O.T. of Confraternity Version Bibles printed. Such mixed texts, which by far are the easiest to find for purchase, often were called “Confraternity-Douay”. With the appearance in 1970 of the inferior New American Bible (N.A.B.), the completed 1969 Confraternity Version very nearly ceased to appear in print, hence making copies of the full Confraternity Version difficult to locate. However, the “Confraternity-Douay” Bibles themselves are quite excellent in their own ways, certainly far superior to the catchpenny, tawdry, and paraphrastic N.A.B.

The Douay-Rheims-Challoner and Confraternity Versions remain the best and most reliable Catholic translations into English ever published and each is notable for its lovely and serious style. New editions of the classic Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version continue to appear from strongly traditionalist Catholic publishers, and one only can hope that eventually the full Confraternity Version also will return to the market in new editions.

Jerry Parker

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Jerry Parker:

By 1969 the Confraternity Version was completed and made available very briefly on the market.

Hello Jerry! How similar would you say the 1970 NAB is to the 1969 Confraternity?