Hi Harpazo -The early Church wasn’t divided on the “apocrypha” as far as I know. This can be proven by the fact that the Orthodox Christians have all the same deuterocanonical books the Catholics have.
In Pax Christi
Andrew
I was finished reading an apologetic book written by a a Former Protestant turn Catholic called Why Catholics have a Bigger Bible. In the Book refuted the arguments made by William Webster. It is common by Protestant apologist to use his views.While you may not agree with him, I would suggest that you read William Webster’s articles on the New Testament canon from the beginning of the Church to the Reformation. He shows that the acceptance of the Apocrypha was far from universal.
christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart1.html
christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html
christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html
The last two links deal particularly with the Church from the beginning to the Reformation.
Hi JF -I have a book called The Portable Seminary, a great book, though written by and for Protestants. It makes the claim that the Jews always agreed on the Jewish canon, and they unanimously excluded the apocryphal books!
Hi TnL -Why the Apocrypha Isn’t in the Bible.
Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries.
The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
Not even all Catholic “Church Fathers” believed the Apocrypha was scripture.
This may be of interest to some… Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:
“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.”
Jerome
Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon
According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.
There are other spurious books.
These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.
The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel
Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:
First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
That’s not what I said. I said Jesus named the OT Canon. I did not say only the OT is inspired. All of the 66 books are inspired. I don’t believe the Apocrypha is inspired.Ah, ****! Jesus said only the Old Testament is inspired! Now I have to relegate the entire New Testament to the Apocrypha!
How do you know that is the source? This information is known to many protestants.truthnlight, please give credit to the source of your cut-and-paste:
jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm
Thank you.
I would also suggest that you and the author of the article actually sit down and READ the “uninspired” books of the Bible.
There’s no way the Apocrypha can be included in the OT. The OT was about the coming Jewish Messiah. All of the Oracles were written in Hebrew for the Jew only. The Apocrypha was written in Greek. How do you suppose anything written in a gentile language can be considered an Oracle of God for Jews? The Jews weren’t supposed to mingle with the gentiles even up to Jesus time.One of the key issues in the first-century Jewish mind regarding the canon was not necessarily inspiration but resisting the Christian evangelization of the Jews and Gentiles. It was an issue of Jew versus the new Christian teaching and the Christians’ use of the Jewish Greek Scripture. It would seem rather strange for a Protestant to choose the truncated canon chosen by the Jewish leaders and by so doing fall on the side of the anti-Christian, disenfranchised Jew in this matter.
We do not know much about the deliberations at Jabneh, but we do know that they mentioned the Gospels of the New Testament. They mentioned them specifically in order to reject them. (The rabbis whom believers trusts to determine the Canon of the Old Testament, rejected the Gospels at Jabneh!!!) F. F. Bruce writes, “Some disputants also asked whether the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sira (Ecclesiasticus), and the gilyonim (Aramaic Gospel writings) and other books of the minim (heretics, including Jewish Christians), should be admitted, but here the answer was uncompromisingly negative” (The Books and the Parchments [Fleming H. Revell, 1984], 88).
Many Protestants accept the Jewish opposition to the Catholic canon of Scripture because it supports them in their anti-Catholicism. Catholics, on the other hand, have accepted the determination and canon of the new covenant people of God, those who are the new priesthood (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9), the new wineskin. As we noticed earlier, Geisler comments, “Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law, the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits for their own canon” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, 169).
Am I supposed to accept the alleged determination of the rabbis as authoritative and binding upon my soul, when the mantle of authority has been passed on to the Church by an act of the Holy Spirit? Does Geisler give his readers this historical information and timeline, reminding them that God had turned aside from the Jewish people and destroyed their temple before their unauthoritative “council” rejected the Gospels and the “whole Christian canon,” including the New Testament?
The canon of the Old Testament was not closed at Jabneh, nor were the deuterocanonicals excluded from the Old Testament there. Who has the authority from God to determine and close the canon of Scripture? Simply put, the Church.
The Jewish hierarchy during the time of Christ claimed authority to bind and loose, which was a clearly understood technical term, but Jesus specifically appointed a new hierarchy over the “new Israel”—the Church—and transferred to this new magisterium the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). The Church was thus appointed to speak for God, and the final canon of Scripture would thus fall under its authority.
Protestant author Paul Achtemeier tells us, “Eastern and Roman Catholic tradition generally considered the Old Testament ‘apocryphal’ books to be canonical.** It was not until the Protestant Reformation that these** books were clearly denied canonical status (in Protestant circles). The Roman church, however,** continues** to affirm their place in the canon of Scripture” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. [Harper & Row, c1985], 69).
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
Even though the Deuterocanical books WERE included in the LXX and that was the OT used by Jews for decades, including the writers of the New Testament and the church for centuries?There’s no way the Apocrypha can be included in the OT. The OT was about the coming Jewish Messiah. All of the Oracles were written in Hebrew for the Jew only. The Apocrypha was written in Greek. How do you suppose anything written in a gentile language can be considered an Oracle of God for Jews? The Jews weren’t supposed to mingle with the gentiles even up to Jesus time.
The New Testament is written in Greek because the Jews rejected the Messiah so God went to the Gentiles with Paul’s revelation, the Apostle to the Jews. The other Apostles (including Peter) went on to convert Jews.
None of the NT books are written in Hebrew, either. Also, the Jews don’t accept the NT as scripture, either. What’s your point? Do we need the Jews to tell us what scripture is?
All the Apocrypha books are in the OT not the NT
Reasons to Reject the Apocrypha:
Oldest versions of the LXX date to 4th century. We don’t know if the earlier copies, the version that Jesus and the apostles used, included it. Jesus and the Apostles never quote from it, though they quote hundreds of times from all parts of the OT. The apostles only allude to it in two places (2 Peter?, Jude), but not as authoritative canon.
The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God.
Some books promote unbiblical concepts, e.g. prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46).
Some books have serious historical inaccuracies, e.g Tobit, Judith. – end STR quote –
And I should believe this because the RCC says so?Even though the Deuterocanical books WERE included in the LXX and that was the OT used by Jews for decades, including the writers of the New Testament and the church for centuries?
They were not included. If they were accepted as God’s Word, they would still be with the Jews now. Fact is, they are the custodians of God’s Word as far as the OT is concerned. Gentile doctrine has no authority in their faith.MMMMMMM…No…not becasue the RCC says so…do your homework.
One of the questions I have is if the LXX is the correct text to use, why exclude part of it as the Catholic Church does?Even though the Deuterocanical books WERE included in the LXX and that was the OT used by Jews for decades, including the writers of the New Testament and the church for centuries?
jfallaw;2429954:
Correction, some of the deuterocanonicals are also in the NT. Revelations, Jude, James and several others (I’m at work and don’t have time to pull the whole list) are also deutercononicals. These also almost got pulled by the Reformers. Luckily for you guys their arrogance didn’t go quiet that far.None of the NT books are written in Hebrew, either. Also, the Jews don’t accept the NT as scripture, either. What’s your point? Do we need the Jews to tell us what scripture is?
All the Apocrypha books are in the OT not the NT
Reasons to Reject the Apocrypha:
Oldest versions of the LXX date to 4th century. We don’t know if the earlier copies, the version that Jesus and the apostles used, included it. Jesus and the Apostles never quote from it, though they quote hundreds of times from all parts of the OT. The apostles only allude to it in two places (2 Peter?, Jude), but not as authoritative canon.
The Apocrypha itself never claims to be the Word of God.
Some books promote unbiblical concepts, e.g. prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46).
Some books have serious historical inaccuracies, e.g Tobit, Judith. – end STR quote –
I find it odd though that you accept the Church’s opinion on the NT deuterocanon but not the ones in the OT.
Or you could believe just about any historian since no credible historian would say otherwise. The Septuagint was dominant because many Jews during this period had lost much of their Hebrew roots. Centuries of Greek dominance which was only reinforced culturally by the Romans led to palestine being a land dominated by Greek civiliation and the common tongues being Aramaic and Greek. It also led to many Jews traveling through Greece, Asia Minor, Italy, Spain and Egypt. Greek was likely the most commonly spoken tongue in the Empire. Greek scriptures were a logical creation.And I should believe this because the RCC says so?
It wasn’t until the rise of the Church that the Jews realized that they were in danger of losing their heritage. Thus the need for an authorized Hebrew codex arose. However, at this point one has to question why a Christian would think that this newer Hebrew codex is binding on the Church? It is obvious that the early Christians did not think the Hebrew codex was binding to them as all of the Apostolic Churches use the Deuterocanons.
One might also point out that while some may chose to ignore history and say it is all a RCC conspiracy. Those same parties are themselves still left with no better position than wild assertion for their own position. As there are no historical references to support a 66 book Canon ever being accepted by the Church at large, whether by conspiracy or no.
As is your perogative…That’s not what I said. I said Jesus named the OT Canon. I did not say only the OT is inspired. All of the 66 books are inspired. I don’t believe the Apocrypha is inspired.
Care to detail it for us?I have a biblical reason as to why I do not believe the Apocrypha is inspired.
I’m sorry, but no. The church has always relied on councils guided by the Holy Spirit to determine such issues, beginning as recorded in Acts, chapter 15.I also believe the scriptures were already circulated back then. I think Rome (during the time of Constantine) got a hold of these and stamped a table of contents on the list of scrolls that were already known to be scripture. With that claim, Rome can now say they are guided by the Holy Spirit and is the “one true church” and has all authority in matters of the faith.
Hi SyCarl -One of the questions I have is if the LXX is the correct text to use, why exclude part of it as the Catholic Church does?
I believe the Orthodox are consistent in accepting the entire LXX and Protestants are consistent in accepting the entire Jamina canon. Why does the Catholic say the LXX is authoritative but reject part of it?