I need a good defense of the Apocrypha as scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter deanarrca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

deanarrca

Guest
Hi guys, I need a good defense of the Apocrypha as scripture. I tried to do a search last night and almost all the results I got were refruting that those books were scripture and many claimed that those books in contention were never considered scriptural by Jews or Christians. I found almost no support for them being cosidered inspired scripture. So if someone here can make a good case for the apocrypha or direct me to other threads where this might be discussed or direct me to good commentary online or books on the subject that would be greatly helpful.
Deeny 🙂
 
You mean, the deuterocanonical books. 🙂
Which books did you mean: the deuterocanonical books (which were in the Septuagint even before the time of Christ) or apocryphal writings such as gnostic gospels?
 
Which books did you mean: the deuterocanonical books (which were in the Septuagint even before the time of Christ) or apocryphal writings such as gnostic gospels?
I believe the OP is referring to the deuterocanon (the disputed 7 OT books), erroneously referred to as Apocrypha.
 
Yep I meant the deuterocanon- Books and portions of books that are included in Catholic Bible and not in protestant bibles. 🙂 Several articals I was reading last night implied that although they were part of the Septuagint they still were not considered as highly or not considered scripture at all by the Jews of that time and now. Sorry for referring to them as the apocrypha (I am almost Catholic) I am in RCIA now and am looking forward to full communion in November. I bought a Catholic Bible an RSV Catholic Edition (My favorite Protestant bible with my notes for the past 20 years is the NAS). I t came the other day and hubby who is not in RCIA at least yet anyway but is very quickly coming around, was reading some of those books last night. I was trying to give him a litlle history beyond saying that Luther took them out and relegated them to the Apocrypha and now they don’t even appear at all in most Protestant bibles. Most of what I found online last night were sights claims that the Catholics added them and not that they had always been considered scripture and that Luther removed them.
So I kinda of wanted more of the story and the Catholic position on them.Thanks Deeny 🙂
 
Well, the Jews had no ‘official’ canon at the time of Jesus and before. Yet the deuterocanonicals were considered important enough to be translated into Greek for the Septuagint. In fact, one might say that the Septuagint was the closest thing to a Jewish canon that was available at the time.
 
Can any of these sites show an Official Church canon that did not have them?

Carthage included them.
Hippo included them.
St. Jerome disputed them, but bowed to Papal authority and included them in the Latin Vulgate (although Jerome didn’t have any official “say-so”, just an opinion).
Trent included them.

If any of these sites can show a Catholic Canon that did not include them, then they have a point. But that has not been the case…

Incidentally, the Jews that are said to have first claimed they were not Scriptural (The Jews did not have a closed Canon at the time) are the same Jews that declared all the Gospels and the Epistles to be heresy.

Who are you going to agree with?
 
Professor Peter Flint, the author of the only existing English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls (not a Catholic), made it plain that the Deuterocononical Books were included with the other books of the Old Testament in the scrolls. They were found together.

Jesus quoted the Septuagint in 80% of His Old Testament References.

John Salza at ScriptureCatholic.com provides us with SEPTUAGINT QUOTES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

Besides which, do you really think God gave the Jews the Grace of Divine Inspiration in the 2nd century A.D. when they chose the Masoretic Canon (after they rejected Jesus) ?
 
A simple, quick way:
the first Christians used the septuagint (LXX) translation of the OT, and that version includes the apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals.

When St. Paul, and most of the NT (especially Hebrews), quotes from the OT, they use the LXX.

And if proving the DCs from a Biblical point of view, check out the Bible verses (and Church Fathers) that this website uses:
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

May God be blessed.
 
A simple, quick way:
the first Christians used the septuagint (LXX) translation of the OT, and that version includes the apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals.

When St. Paul, and most of the NT (especially Hebrews), quotes from the OT, they use the LXX.
I’ve got a problem with this sort of logic. There were books in the Septuagint that are not in the Catholic Canon. 3rd and 4th Esdras comes to mind (I believe that’s it).
 
I’ve got a problem with this sort of logic. There were books in the Septuagint that are not in the Catholic Canon. 3rd and 4th Esdras comes to mind (I believe that’s it).
The other issue with this argumentation is that the septuagint also included books that neither of us (catholic or protestant) will accept as inspired. I don’t remember that names of the books but it seems that Maccabees III and IV are included in the septuagint. You can do a quick search on line and confirm this.

Also, there wasn’t just one version of the septuagint. From what I’ve read, some had one or two of the books in question, some had all, and some had all the books in question as well as a few both sides reject. I guess it wasn’t as easy as going to the local bookstore and picking up a version of your favorite study bible.

Just my .02 cents.
 
The other issue with this argumentation is that the septuagint also included books that neither of us (catholic or protestant) will accept as inspired. I don’t remember that names of the books but it seems that Maccabees III and IV are included in the septuagint. You can do a quick search on line and confirm this.

Also, there wasn’t just one version of the septuagint. From what I’ve read, some had one or two of the books in question, some had all, and some had all the books in question as well as a few both sides reject. I guess it wasn’t as easy as going to the local bookstore and picking up a version of your favorite study bible.

Just my .02 cents.
Which is why I place my trust in the Christian Councils of the 4th century. 😉

The problem stems from there never being a closed canon. I don’t think the Psalm were considered "inspired until the 200-100 BC.

Again, there’s some debate about whether there was a council of Jamnia that closed the Jewish canon or whether the final authority was in the 14th century AD.

Either way, I’d trust the OT Canon of the Catholic Church over the Jewish canon because either
a) the Jamnian council rejected all the Gospels and the Epistles. What makes them experts on the OT canon (which we understand, need to be understood in the light of Christ).
b) the 14th century council was even further removed from the OT culture than the 4th century Christian councils.
 
Which is why I place my trust in the Christian Councils of the 4th century. 😉

The problem stems from there never being a closed canon. I don’t think the Psalm were considered "inspired until the 200-100 BC.

Again, there’s some debate about whether there was a council of Jamnia that closed the Jewish canon or whether the final authority was in the 14th century AD.

Either way, I’d trust the OT Canon of the Catholic Church over the Jewish canon because either
a) the Jamnian council rejected all the Gospels and the Epistles. What makes them experts on the OT canon (which we understand, need to be understood in the light of Christ).
b) the 14th century council was even further removed from the OT culture than the 4th century Christian councils.
I’ve no wish to debate whether the books you refer to as deuterocanoncial are inspired or not. I only wished to point out faulty reasoning.
 
I’ve no wish to debate whether the books you refer to as deuterocanoncial are inspired or not. I only wished to point out faulty reasoning.
i agree with you.
Trust that they are inspired …

not because a couple of them are quoted by Jesus (because many books in the Catholic OT are not quited by Jesus)

… but because the Catholic Church says they are inspired.

Others have stated “but they don’t even claim to be inspired”.
In fact, many of our agreed upon books do not claim to be inspired. So this is not a way to measure devine inspiration.

Some of them were found with the dead sea scrolls along with other OT books that we agree are inspired. This is not a good argument either because there were OTHER books that we agree are not inspired that were also in the same bundle of dead sea scrolls.

“The Jews don’t consider them inspired.”
A couple of points. Which Jews? There were several communities of Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, Asenes, others) that never agree on what was and was not inspired. Most Jews were destroyed along with the temple in AD70. So the canon decided upon at the end of the first century by a small community of Jews in no way represents the views of all Jewish communities at the time of Jesus.
Point 2 - why listen to the Jews that Christ described as corrupt? Instead we should listen to the church that Christ instituted.

One of the Jewish arguments against the deutero. was that they were in Greek and not Hebrew. Their thinking was that if it were inspired, we’d have Hebrew copies. Guess what we did find in the dead sea scrolls. HEBREW copies of some of the deutero. This point doesn’t prove those books are inspired, but it shows that one argument of the Jews deciding their canon doesn’t hold water.

There is only one reason to consider those books inspired.
… because the Catholic Church says they are.
In fact, the only reason to consider any of the bible inspired is because the Catholic Church says so.

michel
 
i agree with you.
Trust that they are inspired …

not because a couple of them are quoted by Jesus (because many books in the Catholic OT are not quited by Jesus)

… but because the Catholic Church says they are inspired.

Others have stated “but they don’t even claim to be inspired”.
In fact, many of our agreed upon books do not claim to be inspired. So this is not a way to measure devine inspiration.

Some of them were found with the dead sea scrolls along with other OT books that we agree are inspired. This is not a good argument either because there were OTHER books that we agree are not inspired that were also in the same bundle of dead sea scrolls.

“The Jews don’t consider them inspired.”
A couple of points. Which Jews? There were several communities of Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, Asenes, others) that never agree on what was and was not inspired. Most Jews were destroyed along with the temple in AD70. So the canon decided upon at the end of the first century by a small community of Jews in no way represents the views of all Jewish communities at the time of Jesus.
Point 2 - why listen to the Jews that Christ described as corrupt? Instead we should listen to the church that Christ instituted.

One of the Jewish arguments against the deutero. was that they were in Greek and not Hebrew. Their thinking was that if it were inspired, we’d have Hebrew copies. Guess what we did find in the dead sea scrolls. HEBREW copies of some of the deutero. This point doesn’t prove those books are inspired, but it shows that one argument of the Jews deciding their canon doesn’t hold water.

There is only one reason to consider those books inspired.
… because the Catholic Church says they are.
In fact, the only reason to consider any of the bible inspired is because the Catholic Church says so.

michel
First, I don’t believe they are inspired.

The books you call deutero-canonicals are never quoted as scripture…not once. Simply quoting something doesn’t necessarily prove anything one way or the other. I do believe Paul quoted from a pagan text and I’m pretty sure Paul didn’t believe it to be inspired.

Anyway, if you want to believe they are inspired because your church says so, there won’t be anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

My singular point thus far has been that basing your decision to accept what you guys call the deutero’s because they appear in the septuagint is faulty logic.
 
First, I don’t believe they are inspired.

The books you call deutero-canonicals are never quoted as scripture…not once.

Not Quoted or referred to- I beg to differ - you need to check out the link already posted several times scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

Simply quoting something doesn’t necessarily prove anything one way or the other.I do believe Paul quoted from a pagan text and I’m pretty sure Paul didn’t believe it to be inspired.

And there are no quotes of scripture in a few books that are considered scripture by both Protestants and Catholics for example I believie the book of Esther and Ecceiastes

Anyway, if you want to believe they are inspired because your church says so, there won’t be anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

My singular point thus far has been that basing your decision to accept what you guys call the deutero’s because they appear in the septuagint is faulty logic.
Even my husband even noticed that the deutero-canonicals shed light on many passages of scripture that were hard to understand!
Also read the many online article posted by Penitus
Articles:
envoymagazine.com/backiss…il_story2.html
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp
catholic.com/library/old_testament_canon.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310frs.asp
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

They were very enlightening and gave the other side ie: Catholic side and defense for the deutero-canonicals that I had never read before.
I found them quite convincing. They may not change your mind (most of us already have our mind already made up) but they will give you the other side of the argument. 🙂
PS: Thanks all who posted - the info was most helpful!!
Deeny
 
First, I don’t believe they are inspired.

The books you call deutero-canonicals are never quoted as scripture…not once.
Do tell.

Did Jesus quote from the Apocrypha?

The short answer is yes—and so did the Apostles.

Jesus and the Gospel writers referenced the Deuterocanonicals in the following instances:

Matthew 6:12, 14-15—“Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your heavenly father forgive your transgressions.”
Sirach 28:2—“Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.”

Luke 1:17 (describing John the Baptist)—“He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers towards children and the disobediant to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord.”
Sirach 48:10—“You are destined, it is written, in time to come, to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of fathers towards their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob.”

Luke 1:28, 1:42—“And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you!’…Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Judith 13:18—"Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women of the earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Luke 1:52—“He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly.”
Sirach 10:14—“The thrones of the arrogant God overturns, and establishes the lowly in their stead.”

Luke 12:19-20—“I shall say to myself, ‘Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!’ But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’”
Sirach 11:19—“When he says: ‘I have found rest, now I will feast on my possessions,’ he does not know how long it will be till he dies and leaves them to others.”

Luke 18:22—“When Jesus heard this, he said to him, ‘There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.’”
Sirach 29:11—“Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold.”

John 3:12—“If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?”
Wisdom 9:16—“Scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?”

John 5:18—“For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.”
Wisdom 2:16—“He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.”

John 10:29—“My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.”
Wisdom 3:1—“But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.”
 
Paul and James allude to them as well:

Romans 2:11—“There is no partiality with God.”
Sirach 35:12—“For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites.”

Romans 9:21—“Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose andanother fo an ignoble one?”
Wisdom 15:7—“For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: both the vessels that serve for clean purposes, and their opposites, all alike; as to what shall be the use of each vessel of eiother class, the worker in clay is the judge.”

Romans 11:24—“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?”
Wisdom 9:13—“For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?”

1 Thessalonians 2:16—"(The enemies of Christ persecute us), trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them."
2 Maccabees 6:14—“Thus, in dealing with other nations, the Lord patiently waits until they reach the full measure of their sins before he punishes them; but with us he has decided to deal differently”

James 1:13—“No one experiencing temptation should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one.”
Sirach 15:11-12—“Say not: ‘It was God’s doing that I fell away’; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: ‘It was he who set me astray’; for he has no need of wicked man.”

James 5:2-3—“Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten, your gold and silver hav corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire.”
Judith 16:17—'The Lord Almighty will requite them; in the day of judgement he will punish them: he will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever."

Now, of course, you may say that these don’t sound like exact quotes, and you’d be right; but there are thousands of allusions in the New Testament from the Old, both Deuterocanon and not, which are not exact quotes. Romans 11:34, for example, also has an allusion to Job 15:8, but ironically the allusion to Wisdom 9:13 is closer in actual wording to it than Job is. And, of course, if you want to get into loose allusions, we could expand the above list to ten times the size it is. Then there are also the cases of outright error in some New Testament quotes, such as Matthew 27:9, in which Matthew quotes “the prophet Jeremiah”, when the allusion is actually found nowhere in Jeremiah but rather in Zecheriah 11:12-13.

There is also the case of some Old Testament books not being quoted by Jesus in the New Testament: He didn’t quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon. And yet they are still considered to be canonical Scripture even though He did not reference them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top