Protestants: What weight do you give to the "Apocrypha"?

[O.S.Luke]

Perhaps, I choose words incorrectly. Let me just say that in the NT, the Septuagint are often cited but not quoted.

Huh?!?

 

[BrianH]

Huh?!?

Welcome, confusing isn’t it?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Let me just give one example. Consider OT of Issiah 7:14

The Hebrew Text states,

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Septuagint:

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

[BrianH]

Let me just give one example. Consider OT of Issiah 7:14

The Hebrew Text states,

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Septuagint:

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

They are both accurate translations of almah.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Of course, but we see Matthew use the LXX translation rather than the Hebrew Text.

 

[BrianH]

Of course, but we see Matthew use the LXX translation rather than the Hebrew Text.

I see our fundamental problem right here. You are far more liberal about inspiration than I am.
Scholarly speaking, sure, it is far more likely he used the Septuagint which I also contend agrees with Hebrew use of the word. You seem, maybe not, to be saying the Hebrew translation is incorrect. It is not. Almah is never used to reflect a person who is not a virgin. Most young girls are virgins. The Septuagint is an accurate, not inspired translation, of the Hebrew original in this case.
But I do not think we are going to agree on this too much because I am far more conservative, more like a Traditional Catholic, than you are on this issue I suspect.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I see our fundamental problem right here. You are far more liberal about inspiration than I am.
Scholarly speaking, sure, it is far more likely he used the Septuagint which I also contend agrees with Hebrew use of the word. You seem, maybe not, to be saying the Hebrew translation is incorrect. It is not. Almah is never used to reflect a person who is not a virgin. Most young girls are virgins. The Septuagint is an accurate, not inspired translation, of the Hebrew original in this case.
But I do not think we are going to agree on this too much because I am far more conservative, more like a Traditional Catholic, than you are on this issue I suspect.

I’m not saying the Hebrew Translation is incorrect. I’m just saying Matthew use the Greek rather than the Hebrew to fullfil the full context of the promised Messiah.

 

[MarcoPolo]

he’s trying to show that Jesus Himself gives them no value.

I see the “trying” part…I don’t see the actually doing it part. I was just hoping he would shed light on how those Scriptures deny that the Deuterocanons are canonical.

Are you wanting to know people’s opinions and experiences or is this a debate?

I wasn’t planning on debating, but I might ask for clarification like I did with believers. Or I might say nothing and just read like I have done with most replies.

 

[bengal_fan]

Those books were written in Greek by Jews who lived outside of the Holy Land.

this has been proven wrong. they have found hebrew texts of those books that pre-date the septuagint. the books were written in hebrew by jews (whether outside the holy land or not it doesn’t matter) and translated into greek. (fyi, latin, true latin, was more of a written langage than a spoken one. most people spoke a vulgar version of latin who even spoke it. most people spoke greek.)

 

[jesusluv]

Plus, check out** Relelation 22:18-19:**
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone ads to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

19 and anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Do those books merit any weight now?

I can’t allow anyone else to quote these verses erronically anymore. The book John is speaking of is the book of Revelation, not the Bible, since it did not exist as a collection yet. So, the adding and taking away sending you to hell is pertaining to this book and this book only, unless John also saw into the future that around 397A.D., the canon would be set and everything bound together as one book, then wrote that at the end of Revelation.

On the other hand, I don’t see why Protestants run screaming away from these books because they don’t think they are inspired works. Name me one protestant that doesn’t read a book by their favorite evangelist or Christian writer and think nothing of it. Or reading a comic book for that matter. There is nothing wrong with reading those books whether they are inspired or not.

 

[Contarini]

this has been proven wrong. they have found hebrew texts of those books that pre-date the septuagint.

The Book of Wisdom has a Hebrew original, I believe. I am not familiar with such an original for any of the others. Care to give a source for this?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Just curious, in light of the first Protestant Bibles having contained the so-called “Apocryphal” books in an appendix, if today any of you read these books? Do you place a degree of value in them? Any degree of Divine inspiration? Any perspectives you have would interest me.

I do not regard these books as unquestionably inspired in the way the books of the Hebrew canon are. Therefore, I do not think that they should be used to prove doctrine, but they can and should be read liturgically in the Church for moral instruction. This is the opinion held by many Catholic scholars before the Reformation. It is one traditional position, alongside the one now officially taught by your Church.

Edwin

 

[lak611]

The Book of Wisdom has a Hebrew original, I believe. I am not familiar with such an original for any of the others. Care to give a source for this?

Edwin

I have the ecumenical RSV, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, edited by May and Metzger, copyright 1977. I looked over the book introductions. Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and Psalm 151 were originally written in Hebrew, according to the introductions. The introduction to Wisdom says:

Internal evidence, however, indicates that the book was composed in Greek by an unknown Hellenistic Jew, probably at Alexandria during the latter part of the first century B.C. He no doubt used traditional wisdom material, which perhaps included for the earlier chapters material originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.

 

[chefalexander]

unless John also saw into the future that around 397A.D., the canon would be set and everything bound together as one book.

If John did write down everthing he saw, we may never know, but would that matter here? We believe that the books in the Bible were the inspired work of God (The Holy Spirit). Surely He knew that Revelation would be included in the final Canon.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Book of Wisdom has a Hebrew original, I believe. I am not familiar with such an original for any of the others. Care to give a source for this?

Edwin

For example, on the book of Sirach:

Internal evidence embedded within the text suggests that Ben Sira completed his work in Hebrew after 190 B.C. but before 175 B.C.

• from The Consuming Fire, Rev. Michael Duggan, 1991 Ignatius Press, p. 527

…within the last century, almost three-quarters of the Hebrew original has been recovered in discoveries of manuscripts in Cairo and fragments at Masada and Qumran in Israel.

• ibid, p. 528

 

[MarcoPolo]

I do not regard these books as unquestionably inspired in the way the books of the Hebrew canon are. Therefore, I do not think that they should be used to prove doctrine, but they can and should be read liturgically in the Church for moral instruction. This is the opinion held by many Catholic scholars before the Reformation.

Such as whom? I am only familiar with pre-reformation Catholics citing these books as Scripture.

 

[Contarini]

I have the ecumenical RSV, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, edited by May and Metzger, copyright 1977. I looked over the book introductions. Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and Psalm 151 were originally written in Hebrew, according to the introductions. The introduction to Wisdom says:

I may have been thinking of Sirach rather than Wisdom. I did think while writing the previous post that Wisdom seems awfully Hellenistic to have been written in Hebrew!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Such as whom? I am only familiar with pre-reformation Catholics citing these books as Scripture.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed.), a number of the Greek Fathers of the fourth century held this view (Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, and Gregory Nazianzen), as did Jerome, Hilary, and Rufinus in the West. The Dictionary doesn’t give details on medieval and Renaissance views–I’ve heard that some of the Victorines of the 12th century held to this position and have seen quotations bearing this out, but I have not yet been able to verify this apart from anti-Catholic polemic, on which I naturally do not place much weight. It would make sense that they did, since they put a lot of emphasis on Hebrew scholarship and some of them were accused of being unorthodox for listening to Jewish exegetes. I am more confident in the claim that Cajetan held this view, however.

Edwin

 

[MarcoPolo]

(Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, and Gregory Nazianzen), as did Jerome, Hilary, and Rufinus in the West.

Thanks Edwin, interesting. Some of those names rang a bell.

I referenced my handy Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, the recent research product of Gary Michuta.

Here are a few quips:

Eusebius’ “Church History” cites Irenaeus of Lyon as using Wisdom as Scripture. In his Demonstratio Evangeliga, 6.19, Eusebius cites Baruch as a prophet of God. In his Praeparatio Evangelica, 1.9 he quotes Wisdom as a divine oracle…and elsewhere Susanna (the disputed part of Daniel) and Wisdom. - Michuta, p. 103

Athanasius warned of suspicious books “called Apocrypha” that had been mixed together “with the divinely inspired Scripture which we have received upon certain testimony as the Fathers handed down to us.”

He wrote in his “Thirty-ninth Festal Letter” that the books in the Old Testament are “in number twenty-two.” He lists all the books of the Protestant canon, adding Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah and omitting the Book of Esther, and concludes with these “thus far are the books of the Old Testament.”

At the end of the list of his list of the New Testament he concluded,
“But for greater accuracy, I deem it necessary to add this also, that there are, forsooth, other books besides these, which, indeed, are not placed in the Canon, but which the Fathers decreed should be read to those who have lately come into the fold, and seek to be catechized, and who study to learn the Christian doctrine. These are The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Doctrine of the Apostles, and Pastor. Therefore, which the former are in the Canon, and these latter are read, there is no mention of the Apocrypha, which are the figment of heretics who arbitrarily write books, to which they assign dates, that by the specious semblance of antiquity they may find occasion to deceive the simple.” - Michuta, p. 108

So Athanasius it seems did consider Baruch divine, and a few of the others as useful study tools. These latter however he did not consider to be the Apocrypha of his first quote above in blue. He also considered the canon unclosed as eluded to in the above red quote.

Michuta also includes various citations of the Deuterocanonical books in Athanasius’ writings like in his Against the Heathen discourse where he quoted Wisdom as “Scripture taught us beforehand long ago.” - Michuta, p. 111

I see Cyril of Jerusalem in subsequent pages. I could go on and on I’m sure. I am not finished with this book, but if it is ECF citations and references you want, every page is full of them.

The pattern seems to at least show a wide use of these books among all early Christians. But with the unclosed canon at the time of the 300s, it would stand to reason that some books were not always fully embraced without a declaration from the Church. I know Jerome ultimately subordinated any doubts he had to the Church.

 

[AbeOman]

Thanks Edwin, interesting. Some of those names rang a bell.

I referenced my handy Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, the recent research product of Gary Michuta.

Here are a few quips:

Eusebius’ “Church History” cites Irenaeus of Lyon as using Wisdom as Scripture. In his Demonstratio Evangeliga, 6.19, Eusebius cites Baruch as a prophet of God. In his Praeparatio Evangelica, 1.9 he quotes Wisdom as a divine oracle…and elsewhere Susanna (the disputed part of Daniel) and Wisdom. - Michuta, p. 103

Athanasius warned of suspicious books “called Apocrypha” that had been mixed together “with the divinely inspired Scripture which we have received upon certain testimony as the Fathers handed down to us.”

He wrote in his “Thirty-ninth Festal Letter” that the books in the Old Testament are “in number twenty-two.” He lists all the books of the Protestant canon, adding Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah and omitting the Book of Esther, and concludes with these “thus far are the books of the Old Testament.”

At the end of the list of his list of the New Testament he concluded,
"But for greater accuracy, I deem it necessary to add this also, that there are, forsooth, other books besides these, which, indeed, are not placed in the Canon, but which the Fathers decreed should be read to those who have lately come into the fold, and seek to be catechized, and who study to learn the Christian doctrine. These are The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Doctrine of the Apostles, and Pastor. Therefore, which the former are in the Canon, and these latter are read, there is no mention of the Apocrypha, which are the figment of heretics who arbitrarily write books, to which they assign dates, that by the specious semblance of antiquity they may find occasion to deceive the simple." - Michuta, p. 108

So Athanasius it seems did consider Baruch divine, and a few of the others as useful study tools. These latter however he did not consider to be the Apocrypha of his first quote above in blue. He also considered the canon unclosed as eluded to in the above red quote.

Michuta also includes various citations of the Deuterocanonical books in Athanasius’ writings like in his Against the Heathen discourse where he quoted Wisdom as “Scripture taught us beforehand long ago.” - Michuta, p. 111

I see Cyril of Jerusalem in subsequent pages. I could go on and on I’m sure. I am not finished with this book, but if it is ECF citations and references you want, every page is full of them.

The pattern seems to at least show a wide use of these books among all early Christians. But with the unclosed canon at the time of the 300s, it would stand to reason that some books were not always fully embraced without a declaration from the Church. I know Jerome ultimately subordinated any doubts he had to the Church.

This great explanation, though I have seen this Holy Bible, King James Version The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, with the Apocrypha and this may somewhat directly contradict the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version of the bible as far as Apocrypha Bibles are concerned.
Here you will find number of references on KJV biblebelievers.com/BibleVersions.html

I have both The Douay and KJV and one is only 67 and the other 74 books, meaning the is KJV the old version is short by 7 books.

It has baffled me for quite sometime and I think the Douay is more conclusive since most of the Roman Catholic Scholars agree on that.

Let me know what you think and please share if you found new reaeding material.

Thanks,