The Apocrypha

  • Thread starter Thread starter chworkman05
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chworkman05

Guest
Why do protestant denom and especialy lutheran denom’s deny the books of the apocrypha? I especialy do not understand this from lutherans since it is quoted in the book of Concordia.
 
chworkman05 said:
Why do protestant denom and especialy lutheran denom’s deny the books of the apocrypha?
Click to expand...
Apocryphal books are those rejected from the Canon of Scripture. If you are referring to the books that the Catholic Church accepts as Scripture but that the Protestant denominations reject, that would be properly termed the Deuterocanon.

Apocrypha is considered a derogatory term when used to refer to these books.
 
I’m not exactly sure that this is right, but I had read in an encyclopedia that Protestants reject the Apocyrpha because the books included in it were not accepted by Jews as part of the Old Testament. If that argument is correct, then their claim that Catholics “added” books to the Bible wouldn’t be entirely untrue.

Like I said though, I don’t know much about the topic, this is just what I read once. Hopefully someone else will be able to better clarify this.
 
1ke said:
Apocryphal books are those rejected from the Canon of Scripture. If you are referring to the books that the Catholic Church accepts as Scripture but that the Protestant denominations reject, that would be properly termed the Deuterocanon.

Apocrypha is considered a derogatory term when used to refer to these books.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the correct term. You know what I ment but did not say so you said what I ment. thankx:yup:
 
thakyou for the snipit. I don’t know any further than you so hopfully we can get a little more info.
I would realy like to hear from some Lutherans on the topic. Since I am one and do not have the answer, or someone who knows there stuff.😃
 
I have a question with respect to these books. Which version is correct. There are significant differences found between the versions in the NAB and in the Douay-Rheims. For example compare the first few chapters in Tobit and Judith between the versions and you will see a great variance. Which is the right version?
 
Can inspired books teach different things?

In Malachi we read:
Did he not make one being, with flesh and spirit: and what does that one require but godly offspring? You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith with the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, And covering one’s garment with injustice, says the LORD of hosts; You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith.
(Malachi 2:15-16 NAB)
Click to expand...
And Jesus tells us:
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever? He said in reply, Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.
(Matthew 19:3-6 NAB)
Click to expand...
Yet Sirach advises:
Allow water no outlet, and be not indulgent to an erring wife. If she walks not by your side, cut her away from you.
(Sirach 25:24-25 NAB)
Click to expand...
Now my interpretation would be that Sirach advises that you divorce your wife. Now to see if my interpretation was reasonable I looked at the Haydock Commentary which agrees it means divorce.
She will. Greek, “cut her off from thy flesh.” Grabe and Complutensian add, (Haydock) “give a bill of divorce or her dowry, and send her away.” (Calmet)
Click to expand...
haydock1859.tripod.com/id1193.html

How can Sirach advise something contrary to the prophet Malachi and Jesus and still be inspired?
 
chworkman05 said:
Why do protestant denom and especialy lutheran denom’s deny the books of the apocrypha? I especialy do not understand this from lutherans since it is quoted in the book of Concordia.
Click to expand...
CW,

The deuterocanonicals are not completely denied – only their placement in the canon. In the Jewish tradition, they were included in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew scripture) but not in the Masoretic texts (the Hebrew version of the Hebrew scripture). The question, then, is whether the text in Greek more authoritative than the Hebrew text.

Now, as far as Lutherans are concerned, the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals is questioned, but they are considered to have some value. As I was going over our lectionary for the coming year, I noticed that at times there are texts from the deuterocanonicals suggested as alternate readings.
 
SYCARL… the answer to your question lies in what Jesus said:
Matthew 19:
3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” 4 5 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 7 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. 9 I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” 10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted. 12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
Click to expand...
Basically, Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of his peoples hearts… Jesus is correcting this teaching.
 
BlestOne said:
SYCARL… the answer to your question lies in what Jesus said:Basically, Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of his peoples hearts… Jesus is correcting this teaching.
Click to expand...
To me there is quite a difference in allowing divorce as Moses did and advising it as Sirach does.
 
true_believer said:
I’m not exactly sure that this is right, but I had read in an encyclopedia that Protestants reject the Apocyrpha because the books included in it were not accepted by Jews as part of the Old Testament. If that argument is correct, then their claim that Catholics “added” books to the Bible wouldn’t be entirely untrue.

Like I said though, I don’t know much about the topic, this is just what I read once. Hopefully someone else will be able to better clarify this.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of Protestants say that the Church added books to the Bible. But in reverse, I could always say that they took books out of the Bible. The verse they use to support their claim is in the Book of Revelation where adding/subtracting “material” is forbidden. The way I interpret this verse is that it is a reference to the Apocalypse itself (Apocalypse is another way to say Revelation) and not the entire Bible, since the Bible is not a book but a collection of books. If anything I said isn’t entirely correct please correct me.
 
true_believer said:
I’m not exactly sure that this is right, but I had read in an encyclopedia that Protestants reject the Apocyrpha because the books included in it were not accepted by Jews as part of the Old Testament. If that argument is correct, then their claim that Catholics “added” books to the Bible wouldn’t be entirely untrue.

Like I said though, I don’t know much about the topic, this is just what I read once. Hopefully someone else will be able to better clarify this.
Click to expand...
As I understand… In Jesus’s day the scripture of the Jews contained the deuterocannonical books and it wasn’t until 100 ad that the Jews changed their cannon to exclude those books. The Catholic Church used the OT cannon from what was used when Jesus was alive for the bible and the NT cannon was decided on by the bishops.
 
bpcatholic said:
I know a lot of Protestants say that the Church added books to the Bible. But in reverse, I could always say that they took books out of the Bible. The verse they use to support their claim is in the Book of Revelation where adding/subtracting “material” is forbidden. The way I interpret this verse is that it is a reference to the Apocalypse itself (Apocalypse is another way to say Revelation) and not the entire Bible, since the Bible is not a book but a collection of books. If anything I said isn’t entirely correct please correct me.
Click to expand...
You are correct…
 
I am not positive about this, but I have been told it was because they were written in Greek rather than in Hebrew
 
I’m not exactly sure that this is right, but I had read in an encyclopedia that Protestants reject the Apocyrpha because the books included in it were not accepted by Jews as part of the Old Testament. If that argument is correct, then their claim that Catholics “added” books to the Bible wouldn’t be entirely untrue.

**These books were in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the scriptures acknowledged as canonical by Jews made some two centuries before the time of Christ.

They were not “rejected” by the Jews until the Rabbinical synod of Jamnia in 90 AD, a good two generations after the Church was founded.

Who attending this Synod? The spiritual descendants and disciples of the very people whom Jesus condemned as “fools, blind guides, and whitewashed tombs.”

I, myself, do not consider their decision binding on Christians at all

If they were “added” by Catholics, then they were also “added” by the Orthodox and other Eastern Churches.

The real question is why do some Protestants listen to the voice of those who rejected Jesus and reject them?
**
 
** Originally Posted by redrosetea View Post
I am not positive about this, but I have been told it was because they were written in Greek rather than in Hebrew
I believe you are correct.**

**This is not correct.

Hebrew versions of many of these books do exist. And they must have ALL existed originally for them to have been translated from Hebrew into Greek to start with.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
** Originally Posted by redrosetea View Post
I am not positive about this, but I have been told it was because they were written in Greek rather than in Hebrew
I believe you are correct.**

**This is not correct.

Hebrew versions of many of these books do exist. And they must have ALL existed originally for them to have been translated from Hebrew into Greek to start with.**
Click to expand...
The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
“Under the influence of Greek thought they[Hellenist Jews] had conceived a broader view of Divine inspiration than that of their Palestinian brethren, and refused to restrict the literary manifestations of the Holy Ghost to a certain terminus of time and the Hebrew form of language.”
I was told that the Deuteros were rejected because they were not
originally written in Hebrew.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top