Apocrypha

[Isaiah45_9]

Let me start by saying that I am no scholar.

Looking at the information we currently have, Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint (Right?). If this is the case and none of Them raised any problems with that particular translation or a problem with any of the book it contained. Why would anyone want to add/remove anything from the Septuagint. I mean, Paul would probably have written a Reprimand Epistle to the 72 translators!

In Him.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Let me start by saying that I am no scholar.

Looking at the information we currently have, Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint (Right?). If this is the case and none of Them raised any problems with that particular translation or a problem with any of the book it contained. Why would anyone want to add/remove anything from the Septuagint. I mean, Paul would probably have written a Reprimand Epistle to the 72 translators!

In Him.

I don’t think we can make much of a defense for the deutero’s based on the septuagint (LXX). We simply do not know which books were in the LXX at the time of Christ. Plus quoting from certain books in a collection doesn’t necessarily prove anything one way or the other even if we knew more about the LXX than we do.

I think providing the decisiong of the early councils such as Carthage and Hippo should be weighty enough without muddying the waters.

 

[jcrichton]

I think I understand your intent here but it reads a little confused without somehing like “our” in front of “Deuterocanonicals.” For the non-Catholics among us: despite the somewhat defensive tone of the New Advent article on the Deuterocanonicals excerpted above, Deuterocanon is a Catholic term and simply means those books of the canon not found in the Tanakh.

…here’s the rub:

The Pentateuch
The Historical Books
The Wisdom Books
The Prophets
New Testaments

…every single Catholic Bible that I have ever had does not show a distinct list of books under “Deuterocanonicals.”

…I do have “Good News Bible” that exerts inclusion of both “Deuterocanonicals” and “Apocrypha.”

…my statement is not meant as defensive but as demonstrative: to Catholics, at least to me, the term “Deuterocanonical” does not enter into mind when thinking about the 73 Books compiled in the Sacred Scriptures (Bible).

I do find it interesting that the original argument against these books are from a person that determined that one set of Sacred Writings was not authentic while another set was; coincidentally, both sets were kept by Jews!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Let me start by saying that I am no scholar.

Looking at the information we currently have, Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint (Right?). If this is the case and none of Them raised any problems with that particular translation or a problem with any of the book it contained. Why would anyone want to add/remove anything from the Septuagint. I mean, Paul would probably have written a Reprimand Epistle to the 72 translators!

In Him.

…I think it goes back to not accepting the Church’s Authority…

ie: one time I was having an exchange with a Jehovah Witness… while he constantly refered to God as Jehovah I had no problems with him… but I would assert the name of God as Yahweh–eventaully, he attempted to correct me… though I do not know when the name Jehovah was introduced, I do know that Yahweh is as ancient as Sacred Scriptures since there existed a group/school of Jews that were known as Yahwists… he refused to accept that Yahweh was the name of God (in spite of the fact that I quoted a non-Catholic source that states that Jehovah is a derivative of Yahweh)… all that mattered to him was that he would not accept Catholic Teaching!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t think we can make much of a defense for the deutero’s based on the septuagint (LXX). We simply do not know which books were in the LXX at the time of Christ. Plus quoting from certain books in a collection doesn’t necessarily prove anything one way or the other even if we knew more about the LXX than we do.

I think providing the decisiong of the early councils such as Carthage and Hippo should be weighty enough without muddying the waters.

…problem is that some non-Catholic train of thought hold that nothing pre-Luther’s rebellion is authentic: that is, only Protestant thought is without error and factual–Catholic thought is always suspect!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Pwrlftr]

…problem is that some non-Catholic train of thought hold that nothing pre-Luther’s rebellion is authentic: that is, only Protestant thought is without error and factual–Catholic thought is always suspect!

Maran atha!

Angel

I guess I have never met anyone quite that biased. Nevertheless, the councils are historic fact.

 

[ajcstr]

If not for the Vulgate and the early Synods, I would imagine there would several different collections of OT and NT books that would be considered scripture by one group or another today.

 

[jcrichton]

I guess I have never met anyone quite that biased. Nevertheless, the councils are historic fact.

…perhaps it’s my animal magnetism…

…I’ve met (live and virtual) with a wide range of Believers and non-Believers… I’ve been told that I cannot be Catholic ('Catholics don’t read the Bible" or “the Church forbids Catholics from reading the Bible,” etc.); that I need to run from the whore of Bab… that I am the last generation before Judgment; that I do not know anything about Christ; that the Church is lying; that all religions lead to God; that God is known to different people in different ways; that once saved Salvation is never lost–even if you refuse to repent from any sin; that I am not spiritually mature since I do not speak in tongues; that the poor do not Believe hence they are trapped in their mysery; that Hell does not exist; that there are no Sacraments; that there’s only one Sacrament; that Jesus is not God; that the Prophet is not Jesus; that Catholic Bishops (that one came directly from this site) do not even own a Bible; that I am crazy (I made the comment that we are “gods” because we are made of God’s essence–that our potential is only limited by our sinful existence because in Christ Jesus we are Call to become that “image and likeness” in which we were Created)… and I’ve been told, by members of two different groups, that when I truly determine to know God they will gladly assist me in my learning…

I’ve also heard variations on the reasons why the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ Built… these vary almost as much as the various theologies (major themes) out there…

…the bottom line is always this: not the Catholic Church! (…I even got it from a source up close as it was determined that Mom and I would end up on the wrong side of Salvation if we did not leave the Church); when I come across these innovators I smile politely as my mind brings up Christ’s warning (“they will tell you that the Christ is… do not go!”) against futile searches for Him in all the places that He is not! (…of course, I try to offer them the Truth… ultimately I pray that the Holy Spirit Convicts them of that Truth!)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If not for the Vulgate and the early Synods, I would imagine there would several different collections of OT and NT books that would be considered scripture by one group or another today.

…there are several claims that the Bible is missing books (I think the science channel or some other); they claim to have “expert” opinions on the validity of certain “gospels” not included in the Bible’s Canon that are just as authentic if not more so than the four Gospels! …can you imagine if all it took was a general concensus of “scholars” and “experts?” :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

…there are several claims that the Bible is missing books (I think the science channel or some other); they claim to have “expert” opinions on the validity of certain “gospels” not included in the Bible’s Canon that are just as authentic if not more so than the four Gospels! …can you imagine if all it took was a general concensus of “scholars” and “experts?” :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

Which only tells us that the ones who get all the publicity are those who are on the fringes, because conspiracy and sensationalism sells (thanks Dan Brown for reminding us that! ). Even if said claims are roundly rejected by other folks in the field the media is willing to turn their ear on guys who claim to say, have found Jesus’ true crucifixion nails or other items of dubious provenance.

 

[jcrichton]

Which only tells us that the ones who get all the publicity are those who are on the fringes, because conspiracy and sensationalism sells (thanks Dan Brown for reminding us that! ). Even if said claims are roundly rejected by other folks in the field the media is willing to turn their ear on guys who claim to say, have found Jesus’ true crucifixion nails or other items of dubious provenance.

…I think you have it wrong, my friend… there have been authentic anthropological proof that He did not die on the Cross… but rather, got hitched with Magdaline and had several children… they even found the family plot where at least Jesus and Magdaline were buried… oh, and our yellow sun has only “x” millions of years left before it supernovas!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

…I think you have it wrong, my friend… there have been authentic anthropological proof that He did not die on the Cross… but rather, got hitched with Magdaline and had several children… they even found the family plot where at least Jesus and Magdaline were buried… oh, and our yellow sun has only “x” millions of years left before it supernovas!

Maran atha!

Angel

What!? You mean that Hugh Schonfield was wrong and Jesus had actually survived the crucifixion!? Oh wait, it seems though that the guy who got crucified was actually His brother, because we all know Jesus died in a village in Japan after years of rice farming. I guess the Jesus who got buried in Talpiot was another brother? And the one who went to America still another one?

 

[jcrichton]

What!? You mean that Hugh Schonfield was wrong and Jesus had actually survived the crucifixion!? Oh wait, it seems though that the guy who got crucified was actually His brother, because we all know Jesus died in a village in Japan after years of rice farming. I guess the Jesus who got buried in Talpiot was another brother? And the one who went to America still another one?

…Jesus did say that there would come many Jesus claiming that “no, I am Jesus…” It seems that some, including the elite scholars/theologeans would believe everything and anyone but Jesus own Word: ‘I come so that you may Live’ and “I and the Father are One,” amongst other Revelations, are too difficult to accept!

…call me a fool for Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

Thanks for these replies guys, really helpful

Keep in mind that Martin Luther also wanted to shred Hebrews (not signed by its author), James (he disagreed with it) and Revelation (too metaphorical?), but was stopped. Each and every book in the Catholic bible has been in use, somewhere in the Church, since day one. In fact, three partial Hebrew copies of Ecclesiasticus/Sirach have been found at Qumran. This indicates that they may have been in use (by Hebrew speaking Jews) before the Greek Septuagint was assembled. This caused at least one protestant scholar to ponder whether or not the 66 book bible is complete.

 

[patrick457]

Keep in mind that Martin Luther also wanted to shred Hebrews (not signed by its author), James (he disagreed with it) and Revelation (too metaphorical?), but was stopped.

Here are Luther’s prefaces to James, Jude, and Revelation in question. His main caveat with James - which he does not think was penned by an apostle - is because (1) he thinks it contradicts “St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works;” (2) because James “does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ” in his epistle whereas, in Luther’s opinion, that is what a true apostle should be preaching. “Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.”

Luther seems to be under the assumption that the author is presumed to be James son of Zebedee, and so he adds:

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: “Love covers a multitude of sins,” and again, “Humble yourselves under the hand of God;” also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

Each and every book in the Catholic bible has been in use, somewhere in the Church, since day one. In fact, three partial Hebrew copies of Ecclesiasticus/Sirach have been found at Qumran.

The two copies found in Qumran preserve portions of three chapters, while one found in Masada represents six. The substantial Hebrew copies of Ben Sira (ca. 11th century), which provide two-thirds of the book, were found in the Cairo Genizah during the 19th century.

 

[po18guy]

Here are Luther’s prefaces to James, Jude, and Revelation in question. His main caveat with James - which he does not think was penned by an apostle - is because (1) he thinks it contradicts “St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works;” (2) because James “does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ” in his epistle whereas, in Luther’s opinion, that is what a true apostle should be preaching. “Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.”

Luther seems to be under the assumption that the author is presumed to be James son of Zebedee, and so he adds:

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: “Love covers a multitude of sins,” and again, “Humble yourselves under the hand of God;” also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

The two copies found in Qumran preserve portions of three chapters, while one found in Masada represents six. The substantial Hebrew copies of Ben Sira (ca. 11th century), which provide two-thirds of the book, were found in the Cairo Genizah during the 19th century.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Patrick. I knew that faith leading to works was the sticking point, but Luther cast aspersions upon the entire epistle. As well, if you are drifting away from the Sacraments, James is a good one to dismiss. The bottom line is Luther’s opinion, which also drove his doctrine.

As to the copies of Sirach, I was under the impression that they may have been much older.