Who reads the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonicals?

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I’m finding the Deuterocanonicals very interesting, enjoyable, and inspiring.

However, I do think the early Church Fathers had a better ‘feel’ for which belonged in the primary canon that I.
.

Instead of looking to what selected early Church fathers had to say, look to what the early Church Councils had to say. The Church had the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Individual fathers, who were not popes had no such promise.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[inthecloud]

Remember that the ECFs that gave the Deuteros a secondary look also gave some NT books like Hebrews or Revelation the same doubts.
Also, they were wrongly in many cases asssuming that the Pharisee based Jewish canon was the right one. Mistake also assumed by the Protestants of today.

But many other ECFs did not question the Deuteros and even used them in preaching.

 

[Janet_S]

I’m finding the Deuterocanonicals very interesting, enjoyable, and inspiring.

However, I do think the early Church Fathers had a better ‘feel’ for which belonged in the primary canon that I.

Athanasius and Jerome were early intellectual towers … so their opinions should weigh heavily in our considerations. It would appear however that Jerome made mistakes. For example he promoted the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John chronological ordering of NT gospels … and Church followed his idea. Today, it would appear the Clementine order of gospel chronology is more likely the correct order.

The chronology of the Gospels didn’t start with Jerome; it was part of tradition.

Origen (185-254 AD) writes:
newadvent.org/fathers/101601.htm

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, salutes you; and so does Mark my son. 1 Peter 5:13 And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

You might want to read this, The History of the Church by Eusebius (260-339 AD).
newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

Book III is about the writings of the Apostles.

I, like they, don’t think dogmas should be based on these secondary canon books alone. Luckily, I don’t think the Church bases many of its dogmas on them alone. To the extent the Deuteros support the primary canon … all well and good.

Personally, I would probably allow in more of historical books than the Church does … for edification reasons. I don’t think censorship is good idea, unless it is clearly evident that a particular apocraphal book is a fraud.

I don’t think the Church is censoring by coming up with a list of inspired books or a canon.

We have lots of non-canonical writings we use for edification–the Church Fathers, Church council documents, the Catechism, memoirs of the saints, and papal encyclicals. Excerpts from these writings are read daily in the prayer of the Church, the liturgy of the hours.

 

[HannahLisa]

I read the deuterocanonicals for theology classes at college, and I will also be reading them for myself at some point.

I recently stumbled upon a website which says that, as another poster mentioned, Martin Luther DID include the deuterocanonicals in his translation of the Bible. This website says that what really happened was that the printers stopped putting those books into the Bibles they published in order to save money, and that’s when people got confused.

 

[patrick457]

I read the deuterocanonicals for theology classes at college, and I will also be reading them for myself at some point.

I recently stumbled upon a website which says that, as another poster mentioned, Martin Luther DID include the deuterocanonicals in his translation of the Bible. This website says that what really happened was that the printers stopped putting those books into the Bibles they published in order to save money, and that’s when people got confused.

What the website was referring to was actually the King James Version (for the record, some present-day editions of the KJV still include the Deuterocanonicals).

What Martin Luther did was place these books in a separate section. He also omitted 1 and 2 Esdras (which incidentally were also not recognized by Catholics) from his translation. Many 20th century versions of the Luther Bible dropped the Apocrypha section entirely. He also originally questioned Esther, Hebrews, James (for obvious reasons), Jude, and Revelation but he chose not to remove them; his views on some of these books had changed in later years.

Luther did in fact take some liberties in his translation, sometimes embellishing the text to make it more poetic. For example, he translated the passage ‘Jesus wept’ as “Und Jesus gingen die Augen über”, ‘And Jesus’ eyes overflowed’ and ‘Behold the man’ as “Sehet, welch ein Mensch!”, “Behold what a man [this is]!”

 

[juliamajor]

Nope, not all. Eventually Matthew and Luke, and possibly even Mark … written in Hebrew, were later translated into Greek.

As far as we know the were written in Greek. Matthew has supposedly some hints of Aramaic sentence structure. But there is nothing definitive.Nothing extent is older then the Greek texts.There is really no way to prove they were written in any other language then Greek. Greek was the “lingua franca” of the ancient world so it would make sense.Aramaic was the common language of the people in that time period , in that area.Hebrew was mainly used for cultic and religious activities. aramaic was so pervasive that in synagogue Aramaic translations of the texts used were provided.