The Apocrypha: The many errors

[mercygate]

Well then in all fairness, sexual abuse happened within the RCC so all of Catholicism is responsible for it. Exactly the same thing.

And doesn’t everybody on earth remind us at every opportunity?

Fair enough. I accept that. And I take it as a personal responsibility to do penance for all the sins committed against children and adolescents by members of the Church – even though I was not Catholic until 6 years ago.

 

[1ke]

Well then in all fairness, sexual abuse happened within the RCC so all of Catholicism is responsible for it. Exactly the same thing.

Actually, it’s not the same thing.

Sexual abuse is a sin, not a doctrine. Therein lies the difference.

The Catholic Church does not preach sexual abuse, or any sex outside marriage, is acceptable. Individual members go against church teaching when they commit such an act.

By contrast, churches within the Anglican Communion teach that homosexual acts are not sinful, that abortion is not wrong, allow divorce and remarriage, ordain women, and condone contraception. People who engage in these actions are not going against doctrinal teaching to do so.

These are doctrinal errors of your church, not personal sins of persons within your church.

As I said, the Anglican Communion must condemn these doctrines are heretical, and kick out churches that fail to acknowledge their doctrinal error.

 

[MariaG]

Most objections such as this focus on the blatant “historical” inaccuracies of Tobit and Judith. What they fail to recognize is that these books are not meant to be history in the modern sense, but rather morality tales loosely based on historical events. The “errors” in them were deliberate in order to tip off the original audience who were more familiar with their own history than you or I.

Here is an article that might help you:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp

Were there some other “errors” you had in mind? They can probably be explained similarly.

I guess this article is just falling on deaf ears. Or blind eyes as the case may be.

I am also interested in how divorce, allowed in the OT, and divorce in one of the deuterocanicals shows that the book is in error?

 

[Yerusalyim]

The book of Sirach specifically states this.[Divorce allowed for wife who disobeys] Do you or do you not believe this is error then?

By Jewish reckoning a man simply had to give his wife a writ of divorce and it was over…he could divorce her for burning his supper…Don’t apply Jesus’ teaching of the full meaning of the law to OT writings.

Actually, it’s not the same thing.

What 1KE said, Nella…it’s NOT the same…your Communion allows Churches to remain in it that say it’s ok to kill babies divorce, commit homosexual acts, etc…the Catholic Church condemns the sins of sexual abuse you mention…you do see the difference…right?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

How can one of the most explicit prophecies in Scripture of Jesus be uninspired, Wisdom 2:12-20?

ah, it is not a prophecy about Jesus,

Wisdom 2:21-22

These were their thoughts, but **they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, ** And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

 

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by MariaG

Originally Posted by **Fidelis **

Most objections such as this focus on the blatant “historical” inaccuracies of Tobit and Judith. What they fail to recognize is that these books are not meant to be history in the modern sense, but rather morality tales loosely based on historical events. The “errors” in them were deliberate in order to tip off the original audience who were more familiar with their own history than you or I.

Here is an article that might help you:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp

Were there some other “errors” you had in mind? They can probably be explained similarly.

I guess this article is just falling on deaf ears. Or blind eyes as the case may be.

That’s how if often goes. People come in here sincerely pretending to look for answers, but are in fact just looking to bash Catholics.

I always like to give them the benefit of the doubt first, and give them a helpful answer. Sometimes people are polite or even grateful. Sometimes they’re blinded by hate and ignorance.

After they’ve shown their real colors like this, I wash my hands, pick up my pearls that I’ve cast down, shake the dust from my sandals and move on.

 

[highlander]

Hello, I have been troubled by the seemingly inacurate Book of Iudith (Nebuchadnezzar King of Assyria, etc). No matter how many times I read the theory that it was a “historical novel” I cannot seem to stomach the idea that God would speak through lies… Therefore I have been looking for “solutions” to this problem

However, I’ve read that “the Challoner notes in DR (Douay-Reims) state:‘Not the king of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar) who took and destroyed Ierusalem, but another of the same name, who reigned in Ninive (Nineveh, hence “ruling out of Nineveh”): and is called by profane historians Saosduchin’.”

Have any of you heard of this possible Saosduchin?

If you have I would sincerly appreciate some references to him.

My reference for the quotation above:
www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1682793

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well then in all fairness, sexual abuse happened within the RCC so all of Catholicism is responsible for it. Exactly the same thing.

Same can be said with ordination of gay bishop, which is just as worst a sexual abuse scandal. Then again, I don’t know why you bring this issue which have nothing to do with the thread itself.

Stick to the topic will you, Nella?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Divorce if your wife does not obey you Sirach 25:26

Jesus said that divorce entered into the law through the hardness of man’s heart. Should we through out all the books that o.k. divorce? Goodbye Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc.

better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good. It is a woman who brings shame and disgrace. Sirach 42:14

A commentary on this says:
*
That is, there is, commonly speaking, less danger to be apprehended to the soul from the churlishness, or injuries we receive from men, than from the flattering favours and familiarity of women.*

The book of Judith: Tons of errors!: Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon and never ruled from Ninevah as said so in this book.

I haven’t read Judith before, nor am I knowledgeable on ancient Babylonian history, so I can’t respond to this.

Baruch 6:2 says that the Jews would serve Babylon for seven generations. Jeremiah 25:11, 29:11 says 70 years

I don’t see a real difference. The ancient Jews did use various ways to measure time - many of which don’t make much sense to us today.

Pope Gregory the Great didn’t even believe that 1st Maccabees was inspired. If the RCC believes that it really is, then Pope Gregory was in error.

Quote please.

Question, if the Deuterocanonical Books are not inspired, why did Jesus and the Apostles quote from them?

 

[Fidelis]

Hello, I have been troubled by the seemingly inacurate Book of Iudith (Nebuchadnezzar King of Assyria, etc). No matter how many times I read the theory that it was a “historical novel” **I cannot seem to stomach the idea **that God would speak through lies…

If you are speaking about the “inaccuracies” of the stories making those stories “a lie,”— if it isn’t intended to be or doesn’t pretend to be factual, it isn’t a lie.

The *Lord of the Rings *trilogy is a story. The author did not intend it to be taken as a true story. Therefore the story is not a lie – it is just a story. I don’t understand why that is so hard to understand in the case of certain stories that appear in the Scriptures.

Conversely, if one believes that that Tobit and Judith were *meant *to be factual, what proof do they have of this?

Unless one believes that **every **story in the Bible MUST be historical narrative in the modern sense, to me it seems like an artificial and needless objection.

If you are speaking about the fact that some of the characters seem to tell lies in these stories – this has been addressed thoroughly in previous posts (see Post #8). Why not examine the merits of the explanations of the answers people have so graciously provided instead of relying on your feelings or “stomach”?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Oh Nella! I hope you don’t hit and run like you have on other threads (we ask questions and you disappear!)

1. Which translation of the OT do you read?
2. Which translation of the OT does your church read?
3. Which ending does your church think is the correct one in St Mark’s Gospel? The longer? Or the shorter?

Thanks

Robert

BUMP!

O Nella? Wherefore art thou ramblin’ about???

Please answer these questions!

Thanks

Robert

 

[Ignatius]

How can the RC claim that the apocrypha is also the word of God when it contains so many errors? We (Anglicans) read from the apocrypha (we have the same readings and gospel every Sunday morning as you do), but we do not establish church teaching from it.

Because the books of the Septuagint Bible, which is what the Catholic Old Testament is based on and which includes the Deuterocanonical books, is the translation most likely used in the area at the time of Christ, and hence that used by Jesus and the Apostles as they preached the Bible. Of course it was also the Old Testament used by all Christians until the Protestants removed them in the 1800s’.

God Bless.

 

[nonsumd]

Most of the arguments Protestants use agains the Deuterocanonical books are the same as the arguments atheists use against the other books of the Bible. It’s sad.

You took the words out of my mouth!

One can’t dismiss the Deuterocanonicals on the basis of their supposed “errors” without also dismissing the rest of the Bible, which is full of “errors” of the same type.

As far as I am concerned, if the Deueterocanonicals were good enough to be included in the Septuagint and the Septuagint was good enough for the authors of the New Testament, they are good enough for me.

One can’t throw the Deuterocanonicals without undermining the legitimacy of the New Testament which quotes them.

 

[Nella]

Same can be said with ordination of gay bishop, which is just as worst a sexual abuse scandal. Then again, I don’t know why you bring this issue which have nothing to do with the thread itself.

Stick to the topic will you, Nella?

It completely parallels the idea of ordained gay clergy within the Anglican communion. The Anglican church does NOT condone it but TEC was assumptually free to ordain as they wished. It is NOT part of Anglican church teaching just as pedophilia is not part of Catholic teaching, but the point is that they both have taken place regardless.

 

[highlander]

If you are speaking about the “inaccuracies” of the stories making those stories “a lie,”— if it isn’t intended to be or doesn’t pretend to be factual, it isn’t a lie.

The *Lord of the Rings *trilogy is a story. The author did not intend it to be taken as a true story. Therefore the story is not a lie – it is just a story. I don’t understand why that is so hard to understand in the case of certain stories that appear in the Scriptures.

Conversely, if one believes that that Tobit and Judith were *meant *to be factual, what proof do they have of this?

Unless one believes that **every **story in the Bible MUST be historical narrative in the modern sense, to me it seems like an artificial and needless objection.

If you are speaking about the fact that some of the characters seem to tell lies in these stories – this has been addressed thoroughly in previous posts (see Post #8). Why not examine the merits of the explanations of the answers people have so graciously provided instead of relying on your feelings or “stomach”?

I know that some interpret Iudith as “fiction,” but I’ve also heard that some Catholics (maybe a small minority) have some arguments that would say that Iudith is not ficiton, but is historical. I’m sorry for my lack of references, but I’ve also read that St Ierome, while thinking Iudith was non-canonical, thought it was accurate history, anyways…

I’m sorry to repeat myself, but I WANT to believe that Iudith is true (I don’t really see much wrong with Tobias, btw:thumbsup. This is why I’m interested in the theory that “Nebuchadnezzar” is reffered to as Saosduchin by secular historians (see above post). I do not know whether my source is acurate, however.

Here it is again: websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1682793

BTW, when I said “speak through lies,” I did not mean I was angry at Iudith for what she did to Holofernes, he had it coming…

Thank you for your time and your arguments.

Highlander

 

[adrift]

You do not think that divorcing your wife if she does not obey you is an error in teaching??

Would you say that Deuteronomy is in error?
Deuteronomy
Chapter 24

1
1 2 "When a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and therefore he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house:

At the time, the practice was that divorce was allowed for any reason.
Jesus clarified it by saying

Matthew 19
6 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”
8
He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How can the RC claim that the apocrypha is also the word of God when it contains so many errors? We (Anglicans) read from the apocrypha (we have the same readings and gospel every Sunday morning as you do), but we do not establish church teaching from it.

The Bible is not inerrant either - people often mention the various deaths of Antiochus IV in Maccabees, while forgetting the Biblical variations as to the identity of the slayer of Goliath, & the manner of the death of of Judas Iscariot: to name only two difficulties in the Protocanonical books.​

Did David or Elhanan kill Goliath ? The OT gives both answers. As for David being the same as Elhanan (as is sometimes said): it’s a nifty idea, but that is no evidence that it is true. It could be utter poppycock - there is no way of knowing

If rejecters of Maccabees were consistent, they would reject 1 Samuel, 1 Chronicles, Matthew, & Acts. But they aren’t consistent - NT variations are explained somehow or other, even if the explanation is worthless or untestable; while variations in those other books are considered damning to their credentials as inspired & canonical.

I would happily throw out Esther - it is a nasty & vindictive tale of an averted pogrom of Jews which was replaced by a massacre (by the Jews) of their would-be pogromers. Ecclesiasticus - apart from its brutal advice on child-rearing in chapter 30 - is far more attractive & instructive.

Parts of the OT are plain evil - such as the command of Samuel in 1 Sam. 15 to exterminate the Amalekites, utterly. This is the spirit of Adolf Hitler, & not of Christ: who shed no blood but His own, & forbade not murder only, but hatred also. Nothing in the Apocrypha is as depraved as that passage or others like it.

FWIW, a very strong case could be made that the NT of 27 books is to be rejected as a perversion. The only NT Jesus knew, was “the New Testament in [His] Blood” [Matt. 26.26]. Now that we have the full & final & definitive revelation of God in Christ - why bother with books ? If we are to have in the Church only what Scripture explicitly commands, there is no foundation whatever for having a Bible in the Church. That it was quoted by the Apostles, shows only that it was quoted by them - not that it was right in the eyes of God that they quoted it. Consistency with Scriptura Sola demands that Scripture be rejected hook, line, & sinker - that it ever took root in the NT Church, is readily explained as (yet another) error of Rome. A truly reformed Church should destroy the Bible as the ungodly thing which it manifestly is: did Christ, or His Spirit, ever require it in the Church ? Absolutely not ! Not one word of the Bible - which is the sole judge in all controversies of faith - can be quoted for such a requirement. Away with it then !

 

[Mannyfit75]

It completely parallels the idea of ordained gay clergy within the Anglican communion. The Anglican church does NOT condone it but TEC was assumptually free to ordain as they wished. It is NOT part of Anglican church teaching just as pedophilia is not part of Catholic teaching, but the point is that they both have taken place regardless.

The Catholic Church does not condone pedophilia and consider it a grave sin. Any priest who does any act has broken his celibate owe to God, and has seriously committed a mortal act against children.

Second, I did told you to keep to the main topic at hand which is the Deutrocanonical Books (which I think is a better term than Apocryphal).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I know that some interpret Iudith as “fiction,” but I’ve also heard that some Catholics (maybe a small minority) have some arguments that would say that Iudith is not ficiton, but is historical. I’m sorry for my lack of references, but I’ve also read that St Ierome, while thinking Iudith was non-canonical, thought it was accurate history, anyways…

I’m sorry to repeat myself, but I WANT to believe that Iudith is true (I don’t really see much wrong with Tobias, btw:thumbsup. This is why I’m interested in the theory that “Nebuchadnezzar” is reffered to as Saosduchin by secular historians (see above post). I do not know whether my source is acurate, however.

Here it is again: websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1682793

BTW, when I said “speak through lies,” I did not mean I was angry at Iudith for what she did to Holofernes, he had it coming…

Thank you for your time and your arguments.

Highlander

It is much more likely that “Saosduchin” is Shamash-shum-ukin: who was king of Babylon from 668 to 648, as vassal of his brother Ashur-bani-pal, king of Assyria (668 to about 631 or perhaps 627)​

The Biblical Nebuchadn/rezzar - Nabu-kudurri-usur II of Babylon - reigned from 605 to 562. He had a different father from the other two, belonged to a different dynasty, was a sovereign ruler (unlike Shamash-shum-ukin), died of old age (unlike Shamash-shum-ukin, who burned his palace over his head rather than fall into his brother’s hands & be executed for rebelling against him), & is certainly not the same as either of them.

IMO, the book is a fiction which emphasises God’s care for His virgin bride (bethulah) Israel by having Israel’s enemies destroyed by a woman called “Jewess” who, like Jael, kills Holofernes, who is a modern Sisera. Which is a very humiliating way for a man of arms to die. Abnd to make his point, the author jumbles together enemies & references to enemies, from the time of Joshua, of the Judges, of the kings of Judah, & so on: all are described as enemies of “Bethuliah” at one time, so that God can humiliate them through the woman “Jewess”, the new Jael, & thereby show forth His greatness all the more convincingly. IOW - they come together, so that they can be laid low by God together.

Saint Jerome did not have access to the sort of information now available to every theology student - for more is known now about Babylon & Assyria than men of his time were in a position to know. Because it is now available, it would be wrong to take account of it. This has nothing to do with anyone’s personal qualities, & everything to do with the fact that he had no way of knowing about cuneiform texts or of reading them; whereas they began to be recovered 150 or so years ago. and they include a lot of historical texts. Which means that Greek-speaking & Latin-speaking authors are no longer the main source of info on those places they once were.

That’s my understanding of the book, anyway If the book is a sort of patriotic novella, one is relieved of trying to fit it into a known historical period. One of the drawbacks with trying to fit it in to a known period, is that one has to mess around with names: if a ruler is named Nebuchadnezzar, why would he be called something so remote from his name as “Saosduchin” ? If someone is called David Cameron, he is unlikely to be known as Tony Blair It is much more likely that they are not the same person: & they aren’t.

 

[dparker]

Question, if the Deuterocanonical Books are not inspired, why did Jesus and the Apostles quote from them?

I am new here and admit I know absolutely nothing about the Deuterocanonical Books. I knew the Catholic bible had additional books, but I never even thought to research why. Pretty shallow now that I think about it…

Anyway…your statement pricked my heart. If Jesus and the Apostles quoted from them, how could anyone not think they should be “scripture”.

Where exactly did they quote from these books? Would anyone mind referring me to the incidents? I think this is a critical point.