What are the doctrinal implications of including the disputed texts?

[dlerhetal]

This is probably too big a topic to post here, but I’m hoping that maybe someone can address some of the biggest implications of including the Apocryphal/Deuterocannonical/Disputed texts.

This is such a huge debate, and I’ve learned how much heat it produces, and I have developed some prejudices for how people from different perspectives approach common human language; however, I just wonder what all the fuss is about.

Admittedly, Tobit and Sirach et al seem somewhat comical to me when compared with the Protocanon; however, I do have to admit that Daniel and Revelations can include fantastic illustrations, and I never blink an eye about them.

I understand why we’re up in arms against heretical texts like the Gospel According to Thomas, but what’s the big deal about the books allowed by the Council of Trent?

 

[Fidelis]

I’m not sure I fully understand your question, including who it is you are addressing.

Catholics are not, ordinarily speaking, “up in arms” about the dueterocanonical books: they are part of inspired Scripture, and they are included in the Bible. That’s a historical fact.

Practically speaking, however, Catholics do get “up in arms” about these books when their canonicity is challenged by various Protestants. Of course that should be perfectly understandable since these same Protestants (as well as Catholics) would have a similar response if the status any of the protocanonical books were called into question.

Perhaps your question was directed at those particular Protestants? If so, I would be interested in hearing the answer to your question as well.

Admittedly, Tobit and Sirach et al seem somewhat comical to me when compared with the Protocanon; however, I do have to admit that Daniel and Revelations can include fantastic illustrations, and I never blink an eye about them.

Not to mention parts of Genesis, Job and Jonah. They are only “comical” if one fails to take into consideration what type of literary genre each one is.

Elighten me: what part or parts of Sirach do you find “somewhat comical”?

 

[Todd_Easton]

It seems to me that including the disputed books would tend to support the Catholic doctrines of the Communion of Saints, of Purgatory, and of the efficacy of prayers and sacrifices (indulgences) on behalf of the dead.

The Communion of Saints:

Including 2 Maccabees would imply, by 2 Maccabees 15:12-16 (Onias and Jeremiah), that the righteous dead fervently pray for the living.

Including Sirach would imply that, by Sirach 46:20 (Samuel) and 48:14 (Elisha), the righteous dead can still perform miracles.

Including the disputed parts of Daniel would imply that, by Daniel 3:86, it is praiseworthy to address the righteous dead in prayer.

Praying for the dead and Purgatory:

Including 2 Maccabees would also imply, by 2 Maccabees 12:38-46, that it is praiseworthy to offer prayers and sacrifices (indulgences) for the dead that they might be loosed from their sins. This, in turn, implies that, in addition to the eternal beatitude of heaven and eternal punishment of hell, there is a temporary state (Purgatory) in the afterlife, where some sins can be forgiven through the prayers and sacrifices of the living on behalf of the dead, where the spirits of just men are made perfect, and where the last penny owed is paid.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m not sure I fully understand your question, including who it is you are addressing.

Catholics are not, ordinarily speaking, “up in arms” about the dueterocanonical books: they are part of inspired Scripture, and they are included in the Bible. That’s a historical fact.

Practically speaking, however, Catholics do get “up in arms” about these books when their canonicity is challenged by various Protestants. Of course that should be perfectly understandable since these same Protestants (as well as Catholics) would have a similar response if the status any of the protocanonical books were called into question.

Perhaps your question was directed at those particular Protestants? If so, I would be interested in hearing the answer to your question as well.
Not to mention parts of Genesis, Job and Jonah. They are only “comical” if one fails to take into consideration what type of literary genre each one is.

Elighten me: what part or parts of Sirach do you find “somewhat comical”?

Jonah is probably intended to be comic ​

 

[dlerhetal]

It seems to me that including the disputed books would tend to support the Catholic doctrines of the Communion of Saints, of Purgatory, and of the efficacy of prayers and sacrifices (indulgences) on behalf of the dead.

The Communion of Saints:

Including 2 Maccabees would imply, by 2 Maccabees 15:12-16 (Onias and Jeremiah), that the righteous dead fervently pray for the living.

Including Sirach would imply that, by Sirach 46:20 (Samuel) and 48:14 (Elisha), the righteous dead can still perform miracles.

Including the disputed parts of Daniel would imply that, by Daniel 3:86, it is praiseworthy to address the righteous dead in prayer.

Praying for the dead and Purgatory:

Including 2 Maccabees would also imply, by 2 Maccabees 12:38-46, that it is praiseworthy to offer prayers and sacrifices (indulgences) for the dead that they might be loosed from their sins. This, in turn, implies that, in addition to the eternal beatitude of heaven and eternal punishment of hell, there is a temporary state (Purgatory) in the afterlife, where some sins can be forgiven through the prayers and sacrifices of the living on behalf of the dead, where the spirits of just men are made perfect, and where the last penny owed is paid.

[emphasis mine]

ah. tetzel et al.

now i understand what the hubub is about.

 

[dlerhetal]

Elighten me: what part or parts of Sirach do you find “somewhat comical”?

I have absolutely no idea. Honestly. I was frankly out of line there.

hmmm.

I began perusing Sirach to find which passage had seemed fantastical to me, and I’ve now spent a good bit of the afternoon, and although I find 31:25-31 interesting, it’s no funnier to my ears than Peter’s response in Acts 2:15. And it is certainly not like Tobit.

This may not be the first, but I hope it to be the last time I were ever this blatantly wrong.

 

[Todd_Easton]

…the last penny owed is paid.

[emphasis mine]

ah. tetzel et al.

now i understand what the hubub is about.

Actually, I wasn’t thinking of Tetzel; I was thinking of Jesus Christ:
25Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. (Matthew 5:25-26)
However, there was probably a connection between Tetzel’s illicit trafficing in indulgences and Martin Luther’s rejection of the disputed books, especially 2 Maccabees (12:45), which describes praying and offering sacrifices for the dead as “holy and pious.”

 

[ryanoneil]

To look at it from the other side of the coin I would ask: what are the doctinal implications of not including the deuterocanon?

My understanding is: The reformers rejected the idea of offering prayers to the dead and the doctrine of purgatory. Because the scriptural text did not support their belief, they denied the authority of the books in question and denied them a place in the Protestant canon. (instead of basing their doctine on Scripture)

In other words, I seems like a case of choosing your canon based on your doctrine instead of the other way around. (while still maintaining that Scripture is the sole authority of the faith)

 

[PerryJ]

This is probably too big a topic to post here, but I’m hoping that maybe someone can address some of the biggest implications of including the Apocryphal/Deuterocannonical/Disputed texts.

This is such a huge debate, and I’ve learned how much heat it produces, and I have developed some prejudices for how people from different perspectives approach common human language; however, I just wonder what all the fuss is about.

Admittedly, Tobit and Sirach et al seem somewhat comical to me when compared with the Protocanon; however, I do have to admit that Daniel and Revelations can include fantastic illustrations, and I never blink an eye about them.

I understand why we’re up in arms against heretical texts like the Gospel According to Thomas, but what’s the big deal about the books allowed by the Council of Trent?

First the language that Trent allowed books into the Bible is in accrurate. These books were always part of the Bible and were included in three councils and numerous lists from early Church Fathers. Protestants removed books that have been proven historically that they belong in the Bible.

Luther rejected the Deuterocanonicals because they prove purgatory.

 

[ziapueblo]

To look at it from the other side of the coin I would ask: what are the doctinal implications of not including the deuterocanon?

My understanding is: The reformers rejected the idea of offering prayers to the dead and the doctrine of purgatory. Because the scriptural text did not support their belief, they denied the authority of the books in question and denied them a place in the Protestant canon. (instead of basing their doctine on Scripture)

In other words, I seems like a case of choosing your canon based on your doctrine instead of the other way around. (while still maintaining that Scripture is the sole authority of the faith)

Purgatory does not go well with Martin Luther’s doctrine of sola fide either.

 

[dlerhetal]

My understanding is: The reformers rejected the idea of offering prayers to the dead and the doctrine of purgatory. Because the scriptural text did not support their belief, they denied the authority of the books in question and denied them a place in the Protestant canon. (instead of basing their doctine on Scripture)

In other words, I seems like a case of choosing your canon based on your doctrine instead of the other way around. (while still maintaining that Scripture is the sole authority of the faith)

ah. this study is definitely worth more of my time.

 

[ryanoneil]

In case you didn’t know Luther also took out Hebrews and put it in an appendix without page numbers. (along with the deuterocanon, James, Jude, and Revelation)

Why? Because 2 Macc endorses the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, and Heb 11:35 cites the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Unbelievable! Just because it referred to 2 Macc. Fortunately, the 4 NT books were put back into the New Testament by other Protestants. (but not the deuterocanon)