Would it matter if the Deuterocanonical books were in Protestant Bibles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrianH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrianH

Guest
There are two groups that it would not matter to that I can think of:
  1. Dispensationalists. In fact for hyper-dispensationalists ( a very small segment) the only thing that truly matters are Paul’s later letters and possibly the second half of Acts.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism
  2. Liberal Mainline Protestants. For those who are not literalists or believe in the innerancy of scripture…their inclusion…which has already started in some quarters based upon my observation…would be almost irrelevent.
    users.fast.net/~bekkenhuis/bible02.html
This is opinion only I recognize. So would it matter to evangelicals? I think that most evangelicals are soft-dispensationalists anyway. I could see it mattering most to conservative historical Protestants (Lutheran, Anglican, some Presbyterians etc).
 
Three quick observations.
Code: 
 (1) Protestant Bibles often have the apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. They have respect for much in them but do not include them in their canon.

 (2) I believe you will find that the 39 books in the Protestant Bible matches the 39 books in the Bible at your neighborhood synagogues.

 (3) Didn't I read somewhere that St. Jerome did not think that the apocryphal books belonged in the canon?

 But as a mainline Protestant, whether in or out doesn't matter to me. There is so much in the Old Testament already that I find I cannot possibly accept. Re-read Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23, for example. And what about God ordering Joshua to slaughter the residents of Jericho, Ai, etc., once he had conquered them? Or, King Saul being commanded by that same Jehovah to murder every living Amalekite? Or, the Bible smiling on those who shouted; "Saul has killed his thousands, but David has killed his ten thousands?" How can anyone reconcile such genocide with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount?

  None of this even touches on a whole variety of myths, legends, folklore, and/or fables (some like those of Aesop - with a moral, perhaps). These would include the first 11 chapters of Genesis plus Jonah and much more. There are certain problems in the New Testament, too. Do we really believe, for example, that women should not speak in church? When I go to mass I usually hear a woman or two reading some of the scriptures.

   More and more Protestants and Catholics, as they become better educated, realize that much in the Bible certainly was not written by God but by very fallible human beings, many of them ardent nationalists who warped history.  What worries me is that when certain people reach that conclusion they are inclined to feel betrayed and 'toss out the baby with the bath water'. We need to build our faith around Christ and his message of love and push aside all the distracting additives that distort this message. 

   God bless people of every creed, color and country. May religion serve as a bridge and not as a barrier.
 
If they are simply added back in today, I don’t see it as making much difference. The Doctrinal differences would simply be read into these books as well. You must remember that Protestant apologists have already been presented with the Catholic proofs from these texts and do not accept them as proofs.

If they had never been removed, it would at least lend credence to the “Sola Scriptura” argument. As it now stands that argument is easily false do to the “changing of Scripture” by the Reformers.

Peace
James
 
Sorry, don’t want to derail the topic, just to answer this one question.
How can anyone reconcile such genocide with Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount?
Click to expand...
For one, Jesus sermon on the mount was only one teaching in His entire ministry; it was not all God is. The tribes occupying Palestine at the time of the re-entry by the Jews were idolaters, and it was God’s command for the Israelites to destroy them lest they corrupt His chosen people. They didn’t, and what happened? The period of the judges explains what happened… everything going well, ahh, who needs God? The Jews turn, start in with the idols and such, WHAM! calamity comes to them, they repent, they are restored, then the cycle repeats. At least 12 times. Ever wonder what would have happened if they had not had the influence of pagan practices all around them, like God directed them?

We already know they were capable of building golden calves on their own. The last thing they needed was encouragement in that direction.
 
To many Protestants if the Deuterocanonical books were included it would not matter much. These books, like all the others would be open to their own brand of interpretations and their pastors would be free to teach from them or ignore them as it suited their needs.

Even though there are Protestant Bibles that include the Apocrypha either in the middle or the end that doesn’t mean they are read. Those books are typically viewed by Protestants as historically interesting but insignificant works. So even if they were read, I can’t imagine they’d affect them too much.

ChadS
 
I don’t think it would matter too much if t he Deuterocanonical books were included in Protestant Bibles. There would still be errors and left out verses because they sound too “Catholic-like” pardon my useage. The NIV is nortorious for omitting verses in there Bible, just imagine how much worse the NIV will become after the revision is done and if the Deuteros were in there.
 
Doctrinally it might not matter too much because of the private interpretation factor, but it would matter to many because it would cause many Protestants to learn them the way they learn the other Scriptures, and to be honest there are a portion of Protestants who take Bible study very serious. Right now they are taught that the Deuters are not Scripture so they usually don’t even attempt to learn about them and think that Catholics added them to the Bible instead of the fact that it was the other way around and that Protestants took them out. Many Protestants see the Deuters as being somewhat dangerous because of their misguided view about them and Catholicism.
 
May I suggest that if you haven’t read #2 please do. Many Protestants are well acquainted with the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, and portions of them may be found in various devotional guides and liturgies popular among Protestants. As mentioned, they have the same 39-book OT that contemporary Jews have. I don’t believe such a small difference should cause either Catholics or Protestants to use this as some sort of weapon to prove one or the other is superior. It’s this attitude or superiority or of one- upmanship that is inappropriate for followers of Christ, whatever our church ties. We shouyld be trying to understand and respect one another rather than condemn.
Code: 
Now, friend DOShea, I'm sorry but I cannot accept the justification you give for the genocidal atrocities that "Jehovah ordered" in the Old Testament. Do you really believe that a just and merciful God, the same Christ who told us to love one another, even our enemies, would command Joshua to murder every inhabitant of such cities as Jericho or insist that Saul slay every Amalekite, even babies yet in the womb? This obviously contradicts the Ten Commandments as well as the Sermon on the Mount. No, I see such ruthless accounts as Hebrew nationalist writers who wanted to take pride in such massacres. Sadly, some of this pride still seems to motivate some Israeli policies today, including continual seizure of West Bank lands even when all US Administrations have asked Israel not to do that!  And we have given Israel billions upon billions over the years - and continue to do so.

 The message of Christ and of Christianity is love not hate, reconciliation not revenge, peace not war. The vast majority of the world citizenry views Israel as the major root of the present mess in the Mideast, and an increasingly number of Jews are becoming deeply troubled by Israeli policies also. I salute them. 

 God bless Jews, Christians of all kinds, and sincere worshipers of God whatever their label. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.
 
Roy5 said:
May I suggest that if you haven’t read #2 please do. Many Protestants are well acquainted with the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, and portions of them may be found in various devotional guides and liturgies popular among Protestants. As mentioned, they have the same 39-book OT that contemporary Jews have. I don’t believe such a small difference should cause either Catholics or Protestants to use this as some sort of weapon to prove one or the other is superior. It’s this attitude or superiority or of one- upmanship that is inappropriate for followers of Christ, whatever our church ties. We shouyld be trying to understand and respect one another rather than condemn.
Code: 
Now, friend DOShea, I'm sorry but I cannot accept the justification you give for the genocidal atrocities that "Jehovah ordered" in the Old Testament. Do you really believe that a just and merciful God, the same Christ who told us to love one another, even our enemies, would command Joshua to murder every inhabitant of such cities as Jericho or insist that Saul slay every Amalekite, even babies yet in the womb? This obviously contradicts the Ten Commandments as well as the Sermon on the Mount. No, I see such ruthless accounts as Hebrew nationalist writers who wanted to take pride in such massacres. Sadly, some of this pride still seems to motivate some Israeli policies today, including continual seizure of West Bank lands even when all US Administrations have asked Israel not to do that!  And we have given Israel billions upon billions over the years - and continue to do so.

 The message of Christ and of Christianity is love not hate, reconciliation not revenge, peace not war. The vast majority of the world citizenry views Israel as the major root of the present mess in the Mideast, and an increasingly number of Jews are becoming deeply troubled by Israeli policies also. I salute them. 

 God bless Jews, Christians of all kinds, and sincere worshipers of God whatever their label. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.
Click to expand...
Since Christ quoted from those Old Testament books and claimed to fulfill it, then I would not be so quick to “claim Christ” and then reject the Old Testament as a bunch of nationalist hate speech. God had reasons for some of the things that He commanded and He always had the protection of his people in mind, not only physical protection but more so spiritual protection.

As for my comments about the Deuterocanonicals and Protestants views, I was gave my preception from my former Southern Baptist background, though I realize that not every other Protestant has the same preception, but as one who was in the ministry and very involved in the faith I know for certain that many Protestants do not devote much attention to the Deuters, especially like the other Scriptures.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Since Christ quoted from those Old Testament books and claimed to fulfill it, then I would not be so quick to “claim Christ” and then reject the Old Testament as a bunch of nationalist hate speech. God had reasons for some of the things that He commanded and He always had the protection of his people in mind, not only physical protection but more so spiritual protection.

As for my comments about the Deuterocanonicals and Protestants views, I was gave my preception from my former Southern Baptist background, though I realize that not every other Protestant has the same preception, but as one who was in the ministry and very involved in the faith I know for certain that many Protestants do not devote much attention to the Deuters, especially like the other Scriptures.
Click to expand...
I come from a United Methodist background and the only time I ever encountered the Deuterocanonicals was in a Bible study program called “Disciple.” Out of the section dedicated to the OT we had two days of one week dedicated to Israelite literature outside of the Bible. I think we read a few chapters from 1&2 Maccabees. This was done sort of as an afterthought and meant to round out the section on writings between the OT and NT.

Never heard them mentioned or alluded to any sort of worship context.

ChadS
 
ChadS said:
I come from a United Methodist background and the only time I ever encountered the Deuterocanonicals was in a Bible study program called “Disciple.” Out of the section dedicated to the OT we had two days of one week dedicated to Israelite literature outside of the Bible. I think we read a few chapters from 1&2 Maccabees. This was done sort of as an afterthought and meant to round out the section on writings between the OT and NT.

Never heard them mentioned or alluded to any sort of worship context.

ChadS
Click to expand...
In my Baptist background we held them as being suspicious, though I do remember a Nazrene friend made the statement that Maccabees was interesting, while we Baptists looked at eachother like “yeah right.” I did not start taking them serious until I studied Greek and began learning about the Septuagint, then finding out that the LXX was the OT of the Apostles, and the Deuterocanonicals was in the LXX! That made me rethink my position on a lot of things. I remember deciding to read the Deuters with an open mind, and I found myself on a new journey.

The Bible institute I attended was hardcore Independent Baptist, and anything not in the KJV was scandal, especially the Deuters.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
In my Baptist background we held them as being suspicious, though I do remember a Nazrene friend made the statement that Maccabees was interesting, while we Baptists looked at eachother like “yeah right.” I did not start taking them serious until I studied Greek and began learning about the Septuagint, then finding out that the LXX was the OT of the Apostles, and the Deuterocanonicals was in the LXX! That made me rethink my position on a lot of things. I remember deciding to read the Deuters with an open mind, and I found myself on a new journey.

The Bible institute I attended was hardcore Independent Baptist, and anything not in the KJV was scandal, especially the Deuters.
Click to expand...
That’s funny you mention the KJV. I remember reading somewhere that the KJV originally included the Deuteros in the British version of the KJV. However, when it came time to sell the KJV in the U.S. they were removed for some copyright reason, printing purposes and they could be sold and shipped at a higher profit margin to the U.S. with less paper expended. If I’m correct and remember this correctly it’s hardly the theological positions that prevailed. Only a few months ago I remember seeing in a Barnes and Noble the KJV Deuterocanonicals sold as a separate volume.

ChadS
 
BrianH said:
There are two groups that it would not matter to that I can think of:
  1. Dispensationalists. In fact for hyper-dispensationalists ( a very small segment) the only thing that truly matters are Paul’s later letters and possibly the second half of Acts.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism
  2. Liberal Mainline Protestants. For those who are not literalists or believe in the innerancy of scripture…their inclusion…which has already started in some quarters based upon my observation…would be almost irrelevent.
    users.fast.net/~bekkenhuis/bible02.html
This is opinion only I recognize. So would it matter to evangelicals? I think that most evangelicals are soft-dispensationalists anyway. I could see it mattering most to conservative historical Protestants (Lutheran, Anglican, some Presbyterians etc).
Click to expand...
BrianH-

If Maccabees were accepted as inspired scripture, then there would be no denying prayer for the dead. If Protestants understood that they could pray for the dead, then they would not deny Purgatory. If they did not deny Purgatory, then they would be accepting of indulgences. If they truly understood indulgences, then they would not support the Reformation. If they did not support the Reformation, then Christianity would be much more united. If Christianity were much more united, then more souls would be saved because Jesus prayed that we would be one so that the world would know that He came from the Father.

Instead, souls are lost because of the scandal.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
In my Baptist background we held them as being suspicious, though I do remember a Nazrene friend made the statement that Maccabees was interesting, while we Baptists looked at eachother like “yeah right.” I did not start taking them serious until I studied Greek and began learning about the Septuagint, then finding out that the LXX was the OT of the Apostles, and the Deuterocanonicals was in the LXX! That made me rethink my position on a lot of things. I remember deciding to read the Deuters with an open mind, and I found myself on a new journey.

The Bible institute I attended was hardcore Independent Baptist, and anything not in the KJV was scandal, especially the Deuters.
Click to expand...
The exact contents of the LXX at the time of the apostles has not been proven to contain the DC. On the other hand, the LXX at the time of the apostles has not proven they did not contain the DC. Everything on another thread indicates that the canon of the LXX, and that is an anachronistic way of thinking about it, was in flux. Unless you have some proof I am not aware of.
 
Randy_Carson said:
BrianH-

If Maccabees were accepted as inspired scripture, then there would be no denying prayer for the dead. If Protestants understood that they could pray for the dead, then they would not deny Purgatory. If they did not deny Purgatory, then they would be accepting of indulgences. If they truly understood indulgences, then they would not support the Reformation. If they did not support the Reformation, then Christianity would be much more united. If Christianity were much more united, then more souls would be saved because Jesus prayed that we would be one so that the world would know that He came from the Father.

Instead, souls are lost because of the scandal.
Click to expand...
For liberal Protestants and Dispensationalists? No, that would not be the case at all. Why would a dispensationalist believe that to be the case? I cannot fathom it would make any dent in liberal Protestant theology. But perhaps I am mistaken. On another note, the Orthodox accept them and have a lot of diversity of opinion in regards to purgatory, orthodoxwiki.org/Purgatory
That is not to suggest a Protestant and Orthodox are more similiar than a Catholic and Orthodox; that is not the case.
But certainly that (your post) would be the best case scenario under a Catholic view of the aforementioned verse(s)
 
Roy5 said:
Three quick observations.
Code: 
 (1) Protestant Bibles often have the apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. They have respect for much in them but do not include them in their canon.

 (2) I believe you will find that the 39 books in the Protestant Bible matches the 39 books in the Bible at your neighborhood synagogues.

 (3) Didn't I read somewhere that St. Jerome did not think that the apocryphal books belonged in the canon?
(Snip)
Click to expand...
Just as a comment on your point number three.

Yes it is true that St Jerome questioned the validity of some of the books that The Church determined should be in the Bible. But what is MORE important to remember is that St Jerome sumitted his own personal will and interpretation to the Will of God as expressed through the decision of the Church in council.
It doesn’t matter that this priest or even a number of priests had concerns about their inclusion. What mattered was what as revealed to The Church by the Holy Spirit.

That is why for the next thousand years or so, the “deuteros” were contained in the Christian Bible.

Peace
James
 
BrianH said:
For liberal Protestants and Dispensationalists? No, that would not be the case at all. Why would a dispensationalist believe that to be the case? I cannot fathom it would make any dent in liberal Protestant theology. But perhaps I am mistaken. On another note, the Orthodox accept them and have a lot of diversity of opinion in regards to purgatory, orthodoxwiki.org/Purgatory
That is not to suggest a Protestant and Orthodox are more similiar than a Catholic and Orthodox; that is not the case.
But certainly that (your post) would be the best case scenario under a Catholic view of the aforementioned verse(s)
Click to expand...
I would like to remind Protestant brethren that wikipedia is not a scholarly source and should as such please be avoided as a scholarly authority, thanks.
 
JRKH said:
Just as a comment on your point number three.

Yes it is true that St Jerome questioned the validity of some of the books that The Church determined should be in the Bible. But what is MORE important to remember is that St Jerome sumitted his own personal will and interpretation to the Will of God as expressed through the decision of the Church in council.
It doesn’t matter that this priest or even a number of priests had concerns about their inclusion. What mattered was what as revealed to The Church by the Holy Spirit.

That is why for the next thousand years or so, the “deuteros” were contained in the Christian Bible.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Amen! to that. St. Jerome humbly submitted the opinion in private to the authority of the Church while arrogant Luther brazenly splayed his in the open and caused a problem.
 
BrianH said:
The exact contents of the LXX at the time of the apostles has not been proven to contain the DC. On the other hand, the LXX at the time of the apostles has not proven they did not contain the DC. Everything on another thread indicates that the canon of the LXX, and that is an anachronistic way of thinking about it, was in flux. Unless you have some proof I am not aware of.
Click to expand...
The citations from the Apostolic Fathers of the Deuters as Scripture, as well as those who were right after them such as St. Irenaeus and the rest.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
The citations from the Apostolic Fathers of the Deuters as Scripture, as well as those who were right after them such as St. Irenaeus and the rest.
Click to expand...
An Apostolic Father quoting one or two of the DC’s in the 2nd century proves they were in the canon of the Apostles??
Everyone I have quoted on the threads I have participated in state clearly the exact contents of the LXX circa 1st century were in flux…and these are Catholic scholars…I never used a Protestant one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top