The Apocrypha

[Robbinson]

The fact is that the Septuagent was the version of the Bible most likely used and read by Jesus and the Apostles during their ministry, and it contained the DC books. These books were apparently not included within the palestinian cannon. While the Septuagent was a Greek translation - it doesnt mean the DC books were never written in Hebrew (not sure it matters if they were or were not).

The Jewish cannon was not formally settled until after the birth of Christianity - at that time, the Jews chose not to include the DC books (perhaps because at that time Christianity was a sect of Judaism and Christians were relying upon, and citing those books). Interestingly, those books remain revered by Jews today - although not treated as authoritative as the remainder of the OT cannon.

The DC books were treated as part of the Christian cannon until the reformation at which point the books were ultimately removed by the Protestants (not added by the Catholic Church). The books were quoted extensively by the early Church fathers on matters of spiritual guidance (not just historical fact) in the first several hundred years of the Church. As the to reformation, they were included in the first version of the King James Bible as well.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Freshman88]

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?
**

:clapping:

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

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.

I think you will find many "Protestants “interpret” that verse to pertain to the Revelation as well, if they don’t I do.

 

[redrosetea]

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.

I was told the same thing ,and it was a priest who told me

 

[PerryJ]

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.

This verse really has nothing to do with the Bible. In that age copyist would often paraphrase or change texts as they were copying. To stop this practice the author would put a notation not to change his work. These notation appear in many books of the era. This phrase can be applied to that book; but, not the Bible in total.

 

[RobHom]

I tried to post this yesterday…but my connection failed, so I will try again…

1. There were two different schools of thought in the Jewish world. I believe that exists today. I wish Sepharad was here…she could better explain it. But one of the prior posters gave mention of this via the Septuagent…(sp?)…being used by Christ and the Apostles, and the others used a different set of books.
2. Much of the bally-hoo over the Apocryphal books starts back around Jerome’s time. He, while translating the original manuscripts into the Latin Vulgate…did not personally think that the Apocryphal books were inspired and did not want to include them in the Latin Vulgate when it was completed. HOWEVER…the Church Fathers said differently and Jerome included them. It is also recorded that he later changed his opinion. The Apocryphal books have always been a part of the Catholic Bible.
3. When Luther translated the Bible in German…he did not believe that the Apocryphal books were “inspired”, and while he did not delete them, he relegated then to the back of his version of the Bible.
4. When the King James Version was originally published King James required that the Apocryphal be included. I believe that I read somewhere not long ago…that King James issued a proclamation that required the Apocryphal books to be include, and failure to abide carried as much as a death sentence against the perpetrators.
5. Since that time, it would seem that more contemporary publishers have played “fast and loose” with the Bible and translations thereof…

If one considers the structure of the Bible according to the Canon established by the Catholic Church…all of the Apocryphal books are parts of the Old Testament. drbo.org/ Thus, any and all differences that appear in comparison to the New Testament, especially where subjects such as “divorce” are concerned… one has to place those considerations in a historical Jewish versus Christian perspective.

One other comment… from my knowledge of the Bible, one thing I have always found moderately amusing…is the fact that many of our “separated brethren” have made much fuss over “drinking being sinful”… Yet the only references I know of to sinfulness of drinking, that being “drinking to excess” or words to that effect, appear only in “Apocryphal books”… How our separated brethren can endorse concepts from books or documents they do not believe in…escapes me…

Peace!!

 

[PerryJ]

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.

Protestants reject the DC because their theology falls apart if they are included. The DCs were in the Bible from the very beginning and appear in every early council or Church Father’s listing of books. (The New Testament books were in dispute for centuries. The DCs were not)

Jerome was appointed by the Pope to translate the Bible. He thought that he should use a Hebrew text for the translation The Hebrew text he had did not have all of the books in the Bible. Jerome thought that this was significant and that he had correct version of the Hebrew text. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira scrolls have proven Jerome’s assertion to be incorrect as these scrolls show that the books he excluded should actually be included. This is a historical fact that the Protestant can’t refute.

Even though Jerome was wrong the Bible was maintained by Rome as it had been from the begining. They were not persuaded by Jerome’s thoughts. Jerome in fact calls anyone that refutes the Catholic Church the antichrist. The Bible stayed as it was until Martin Luther was losing a debate to Johann Eck at Leipzig. This debate was concerning purgatory; which, is supported by the DCs. In an act of “desperation” he referred to Jerome’s list of books in order to win the debate. Luther did nto exclude the books because of a great theological break through. He did it because he was losing a debate. Nothing more. John Calvin and Martin Luther both stated that if the DCs are included in the Bible their theology falls apart.

The Jewish council that some refer to concerning the DCs occurred in the year 90 AD. This council had limited authority and did not have authority to canonize a Bible. It also occurred after the Jewish faith rejected Christ and therefore lost authority over the Bible. Lastly, this council also rejected all of the New Testament. To follow this council means one would have to reject the New Testament. To use this council is nothing more than a blatant attempt to misrepresent the truth.

Most Protestants do not know all of this information and assume the miss information they have been given is correct.

 

[PerryJ]

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.

This Protestant argument is one of the most illogical thoughts. The Catholic Bible always had the DCs in them. Until Luther they were not really questioned. Jerome challenged them under the wrong assumption and a few Chruch Fathers after that thought Jerome’s premise was correct. This was proved wrong with the findings of the Dead Sea and Ben Sira scrolls. Luther refuted the books and to counter this the council of Trent reaffirmed the books that should be in the Bible. Protestant state that we added books at the council of Trent. This is incorrect as three previous councils had already approved the DCs in the Bible.

The funny part about this argument that we added books is if it was true then Luther would have to have added the DCs to his Bible. Then we would have had to add them to mirror Luther’s Bible. Luther then would have had to refute the books he added. The council of Trent occurred after Luther published his Bible with the DCs books in his version of the Bible. This is the silliest of arguments from Protestants.

 

[PerryJ]

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?

The NAB is not a good Bible to perform exegesis with. The Bible tried to use inclusive language with regard to sex, faiths etc. The NAB was the work of the US Bishops. Rome has had the US Bishop’s make many changes to the NAB. It is still not correct in many areas. One of these areas is the use of the term “highly favored” versus “full of grace” with regards to Mother Mary. “Full of Grace” is the correct translation and is the more literal translation.

 

[PerryJ]

I was told the same thing ,and it was a priest who told me

That is an old thought the Dead Sea Scrolls shows the other books were written in Hebrew. Jerome just did not have the full Hewbrew text to use. Some Priests may not be up on current archealogical findings.

 

[chworkman05]

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.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I tried to post this yesterday…but my connection failed, so I will try again…

1One other comment… from my knowledge of the Bible, one thing I have always found moderately amusing…is the fact that many of our “separated brethren” have made much fuss over “drinking being sinful”… Yet the only references I know of to sinfulness of drinking, that being “drinking to excess” or words to that effect, appear only in “Apocryphal books”… How our separated brethren can endorse concepts from books or documents they do not believe in…escapes me…

Peace!!

Where in the Apocyphal books is the allusion to drinking? Just curious, because I have read most of them except Maccabees and don’t remember anything about over-drinking.

By the way, how about in the Old Testament when Noah got drunk and naked, or when Lot’s daughters got him drunk and had sex with him?

I love the prayer of the three in the firey funace, and the book of Susannah, and the story of Tobit… There are some great stories and songs of praise in there.

 

[RobHom]

Where in the Apocyphal books is the allusion to drinking? Just curious, because I have read most of them except Maccabees and don’t remember anything about over-drinking.

I don’t remember exactly where, but I am thinking it was the “Book of Wisdom”. I will try and see if I can find it, and will post it. It was worded more or less to say that “overindulging is the sin”.

By the way, how about in the Old Testament when Noah got drunk and naked, or when Lot’s daughters got him drunk and had sex with him?

Whooops! Forgot those…

I love the prayer of the three in the firey funace, and the book of Susannah, and the story of Tobit… There are some great stories and songs of praise in there.

Yes, and there are many other great passages throughout the Apocryphal books…and what I have found amazing is the truths contained therein that are so relevant even today!!

 

[RobHom]

I was in error… It wasn’t in “Wisdom” it was in “Sirach” also called “Ecclesiasticus”… Chapter 31.

*31 Fire trieth hard iron: so wine drunk to excess shall rebuke the hearts of the proud. 32 Wine taken with sobriety is equal lire to men: if thou drink it moderately, thou shalt be sober. 33 What is his life, who is diminished with wine? 34 What taketh away life? death. 35 Wine was created from the beginning to make men joyful, and not to make them drunk.

36 Wine drunken with moderation is the joy of the soul and the heart. 37 Sober drinking is health to soul and body. 38 Wine drunken with excess raiseth quarrels; and wrath, and many ruins. 39 Wine drunken with excess is bitterness of the soul. 40 The heat of drunkenness is the stumblingblock of the fool, lessening strength and causing wounds. *

That is one…I know there is another…I’ll try and find it as well.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I was in error… It wasn’t in “Wisdom” it was in “Sirach” also called “Ecclesiasticus”… Chapter 31.

*31 Fire trieth hard iron: so wine drunk to excess shall rebuke the hearts of the proud. 32 Wine taken with sobriety is equal lire to men: if thou drink it moderately, thou shalt be sober. 33 What is his life, who is diminished with wine? 34 What taketh away life? death. 35 Wine was created from the beginning to make men joyful, and not to make them drunk.

36 Wine drunken with moderation is the joy of the soul and the heart. 37 Sober drinking is health to soul and body. 38 Wine drunken with excess raiseth quarrels; and wrath, and many ruins. 39 Wine drunken with excess is bitterness of the soul. 40 The heat of drunkenness is the stumblingblock of the fool, lessening strength and causing wounds. *

That is one…I know there is another…I’ll try and find it as well.

Thanks! I’ll have to read that again.

 

[SyCarl]

One other comment… from my knowledge of the Bible, one thing I have always found moderately amusing…is the fact that many of our “separated brethren” have made much fuss over “drinking being sinful”… Yet the only references I know of to sinfulness of drinking, that being “drinking to excess” or words to that effect, appear only in “Apocryphal books”… How our separated brethren can endorse concepts from books or documents they do not believe in…escapes me…

Peace!!

Just for the record.

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
(Galatians 5:19-21 NASB)

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,
(Ephesians 5:18 NASB)

For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries.
(1 Peter 4:3 NASB)

 

[Matariel]

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.

Actually, this is not entirely true. The Saducees accepted only the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. The Pharisees accepted all of the Septuagint, which includes the Deuterocanon. Jews generally accepted the Deuterocanon, until the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D., after the Church had already separated from Judaism.

Since the Church built off Phariseeism and their authority derived from the Seat of Moses, it was only natural the Church accepted the entire Old Testament, including the Deuterocanon.

Later on, Protestants discarded them. Anglicans, however, retained them along with the *I and II Esdras *and Prayer of Manasseh. However, the Anglican Church stated that, while moral lessons can be derived from them, it is best not to use them in proving doctrine.

So the Anglicans have an inbetween position, between Protestants and Catholics.