What's with this thing called THE APOCRYPHA?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Been there done that... repeatedly. If they are not admitted to the canon, they aren't inspired...duh.
It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures-testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.

He wrote, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled — the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.

Other writers Protestants cite as objecting to the deuterocanonicals, such as Athanasius and Origen, also accepted some or all of them as canonical. For example, Athanasius, accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39), and Origen accepted all of the deuterocanonicals, he simply recommended not using them in disputations with Jews.

However, despite the misgivings and hesitancies of a few individual writers such as Jerome, the Church remained firm in its historic affirmation of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture handed down from the apostles. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks that in spite of Jerome’s doubt,

“For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405” (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

Letter to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse. (A.D. 405)
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Been there done that... repeatedly. If they are not admitted to the canon, they aren't inspired...duh.
Ummmm, they WERE admitted to the Canon, Einstein.
That's the whole point.

WHO told you they weren't??
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
11,466
2,500
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the original 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible included the Apocrypha books in back. So as the main Protestant Bible of history for the English speaking peoples, that shows the KJV scholars determined it has a place among Protestant Christianity also.
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the original 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible included the Apocrypha books in back. So as the main Protestant Bible of history for the English speaking peoples, that shows the KJV scholars determined it has a place among Protestant Christianity also.
That's very true. However, the back appendix was later dropped to save on printing costs. Protestants have ripped themselves off because of one man's opinions, and that hasn't been mentioned either.
 

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the original 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible included the Apocrypha books in back. So as the main Protestant Bible of history for the English speaking peoples, that shows the KJV scholars determined it has a place among Protestant Christianity also.
It was never considered inspired. Luther translated them too. He certainly didn't think they were inspired scripture.
 

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's very true. However, the back appendix was later dropped to save on printing costs. Protestants have ripped themselves off because of one man's opinions, and that hasn't been mentioned either.
Ripped off by what?
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Ripped off by what?
A treasure house of Scripture. I'm still waiting for any evidence of a Protestant canon of the Bible that was printed and used before the 14th century. No such canon existed. A 66 book canon is a man made tradition. But if it works for you, that's all well and good, but no one is in any position to criticize the authentic 72 book canon that was ratified at the same time the 27 book NT.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
No such canon existed. A 66 book canon is a man made tradition.
That is quite funny. Actually, had the translators during the Reformation reverted back to the original canon there would have been only 24 + 27 = 51 books all told. The extra 15 books within the 66 were created by splitting the Hebrew canon further.
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
11,466
2,500
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It was never considered inspired. Luther translated them too. He certainly didn't think they were inspired scripture.

The Church of England included them, the English Protestants rejected them. Still, they include some relevant info, even though they are not inspired writings to be treated as part of the canon.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It was never considered inspired. Luther translated them too. He certainly didn't think they were inspired scripture.
WRONG.

The Jewish Canon during the life of Christ was an OPEN CANON. It wasn't closed until the 2nd century - LONG after He ascended to the Father and AFTER the destruction of the Temple.
I already explained this to you back at the beginning of this thread.I said . . .

First of all - the 73 Book Canon of Scripture was declared at the Council of Rome in 382.

Secondly - Jerome never "rejected" the Deuterocanonical Books.
Jerome sought help from Jewish scholarship in his Latin Translation. It was the Jewish Scholars who rejected the Deuterocanonical Books - NOT Jerome. Jerome went on to refer to those Books as "Sacred Scripture" in his writings and debates.

Time for a Bible lesson . . .

- The Septuagint (Greek OT) was translated by 70 JEWISH (NOT Catholic) Scholars - about 200 years before the birth of Christ.
- There were 7 Books that were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon of the 1st Century (Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees) along with portions of Daniel and Esther.
- This is the Canon of Scripture that Jesus and the NT writers studied from - and they are referred to some 200 TIMES in the New Testament.

Now, pay attention because here's where it gets ugly . . .

AFTER Jesus died, rose and ascended to Heaven - the Apostles started their mission. Around the years 70 AD, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. SOME rabbis began to have second thoughts about the Deuterocanonical Books because of their "Hellenistic" influence in the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). Around the year 135, during the 2nd Jewish Revolt - a leading rabbi at the rabbinical school in Jamnia named Akiva declared TWO things:

a. A man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the "real" messiah. He turned out to be a false messiah and Akiva was a false prophet.
b. The Deuterocanonical Books needed to be REMOVED from the OPEN Canon - and the canon closed.

SO - you Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who declared a FALSEChrist (Kokhba)

Here's the worst part: the ONLY reason your Protestant Fathers chose to do this was to further-divorce themselves from the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther didn't decide on the Canon. He simply agreed with the apostate Jews who rejected Christ and declared their OWN false Messiah.
 

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A treasure house of Scripture. I'm still waiting for any evidence of a Protestant canon of the Bible that was printed and used before the 14th century. No such canon existed. A 66 book canon is a man made tradition. But if it works for you, that's all well and good, but no one is in any position to criticize the authentic 72 book canon that was ratified at the same time the 27 book NT.
Thats your false dilemma. The apocrypha was never considered inspired. So even if it was in the septuagint or Luthers bible, it was not thought of as inspired. Who cares how many books are in a list? We know what is canonical and what isn't. Jerome rejected your extra books.
 

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Church of England included them, the English Protestants rejected them. Still, they include some relevant info, even though they are not inspired writings to be treated as part of the canon.
Jerome said they can be read, but not for doctrine. Which is what the rcc has done.
 

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WRONG.

The Jewish Canon during the life of Christ was an OPEN CANON. It wasn't closed until the 2nd century - LONG after He ascended to the Father and AFTER the destruction of the Temple.
I already explained this to you back at the beginning of this thread.I said . . .

First of all - the 73 Book Canon of Scripture was declared at the Council of Rome in 382.
Lets see that decree of 382. Something other than wikipedia.
Secondly - Jerome never "rejected" the Deuterocanonical Books.
Jerome sought help from Jewish scholarship in his Latin Translation. It was the Jewish Scholars who rejected the Deuterocanonical Books - NOT Jerome. Jerome went on to refer to those Books as "Sacred Scripture" in his writings and debates.
Wrong. Jerome specifically rejected your apocrypha. I've posted his works verbatim several times. If you don't like it, too bad. Jerome was a hebrew scholar, prove he needed 'help' from the jews. And Jerome rejected the apocrypha because it wasn't in the palestinian canon.

Time for a Bible lesson . . .

- The Septuagint (Greek OT) was translated by 70 JEWISH (NOT Catholic) Scholars - about 200 years before the birth of Christ.
- There were 7 Books that were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon of the 1st Century (Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees) along with portions of Daniel and Esther.
- This is the Canon of Scripture that Jesus and the NT writers studied from - and they are referred to some 200 TIMES in the New Testament.
Your bible lessons leave a lot out. No wonder catholicism is so confused. Regardless of what the septuagint had, the palestinian canon did not have your apocrypha.
Now, pay attention because here's where it gets ugly . . .
Your lack of facts is ugly indeed.
AFTER Jesus died, rose and ascended to Heaven - the Apostles started their mission. Around the years 70 AD, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. SOME rabbis began to have second thoughts about the Deuterocanonical Books because of their "Hellenistic" influence in the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). Around the year 135, during the 2nd Jewish Revolt - a leading rabbi at the rabbinical school in Jamnia named Akiva declared TWO things:

a. A man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the "real" messiah. He turned out to be a false messiah and Akiva was a false prophet.
b. The Deuterocanonical Books needed to be REMOVED from the OPEN Canon - and the canon closed.
Who cares? Your apocrypha was rejected by palestinian jews DURING Jesus' lifetime, and were not considered inspired.
SO - you Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who declared a FALSEChrist (Kokhba)
No one considered your false books to be inspired. Jerome matter of factly rejected them and placed them outside of the canon. Read it and weep.

Here's the worst part: the ONLY reason your Protestant Fathers chose to do this was to further-divorce themselves from the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther didn't decide on the Canon. He simply agreed with the apostate Jews who rejected Christ and declared their OWN false Messiah.
Jerome rejected your apocrypha. Gregory the Great rejected Maccabees. Cardinal Cajetan rejected the apocrypha. Your prelates at Trent had no training in biblical languages. There wasn't a scholar among them that decided the canon. Your church elevated for the first time a bunch of books no one ever considered inspired. Theres your bible lesson, you history lesson and your own catholic lesson. Why i have to school you on this is beyond me. But i'm happy to do it.
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jerome was wrong, and later he recanted. Jerome is not the Magisterium.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Lets see that decree of 382. Something other than wikipedia.

Wrong. Jerome specifically rejected your apocrypha. I've posted his works verbatim several times. If you don't like it, too bad. Jerome was a hebrew scholar, prove he needed 'help' from the jews. And Jerome rejected the apocrypha because it wasn't in the palestinian canon.

Your bible lessons leave a lot out. No wonder catholicism is so confused. Regardless of what the septuagint had, the palestinian canon did not have your apocrypha.
Your lack of facts is ugly indeed.
Who cares? Your apocrypha was rejected by palestinian jews DURING Jesus' lifetime, and were not considered inspired.
No one considered your false books to be inspired. Jerome matter of factly rejected them and placed them outside of the canon. Read it and weep.

Jerome rejected your apocrypha. Gregory the Great rejected Maccabees. Cardinal Cajetan rejected the apocrypha. Your prelates at Trent had no training in biblical languages. There wasn't a scholar among them that decided the canon. Your church elevated for the first time a bunch of books no one ever considered inspired. Theres your bible lesson, you history lesson and your own catholic lesson. Why i have to school you on this is beyond me. But i'm happy to do it.
Looks like you know much much more than I ever will,
but I can confirm that at the Council of Trent it was decided that priests should learn the language of the bible...AND that they should STUDY the bible...both the old and new testaments. Priests did not have theological study at that time.
In fact, very good schools were set up for the priests which also turned out to be used for the general public and this raised the literacy of Europe at the time.
 

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Looks like you know much much more than I ever will,
but I can confirm that at the Council of Trent it was decided that priests should learn the language of the bible...AND that they should STUDY the bible...both the old and new testaments. Priests did not have theological study at that time.
In fact, very good schools were set up for the priests which also turned out to be used for the general public and this raised the literacy of Europe at the time.
All well and good, but that doesn't help the current roman catholic predicament. There was no rc scholarship in Luthers day. Which is why the rcc stole his bible and re-distributed it as their own. Also why trent had no scholars to make an educated determination of the canon they were voting on. But thanks for the info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.​

(God in the Dock, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, 44-47)

The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!

And books such as Barnabas and 1 and 2 Clement were considered Scripture by many at the same time (for example, the manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus). Of the 27 New Testament books, 14 were not mentioned at all until around 200 A.D., including Acts, 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians.

On what grounds, then, can we receive the Canon today except on the authority of the Church in the 5th century? These facts cause insuperable problems for Protestantism and its guiding principle of “Scripture Alone,” but are not a difficulty in the least for Catholics, who believe in Tradition, Church Authority, and development – all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical Canon.

It is plain silly (not to mention insufferably arrogant) to assert, as did Luther and especially Calvin, that the knowledge of what books constitute Scripture is attained simply by an intuitive and subjective inkling within each Spirit-filled person. If the early Church had such a difficult time determining what was and was not Scripture, how could Calvin 15 centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian?!

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning. It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, “diabolical” Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:
One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
(Introduction 5, 6)

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.

Thus Protestantism is inconsistent in its selective espousal of Christian beliefs. The so-called “Catholic distinctives” were merely cast off at the time of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century – basically due to prejudice and ignorance. Protestantism ever since has had to either distort, ignore, or be embarrassed by the facts of early Christian history which, again and again, are found to be much more in conjunction with Catholicism. Protestant anti-Catholic apologists are notorious for searching for quotes by Church Fathers which appear to support their presuppositions, while bypassing those (often by the same Father) which clearly suggest the Catholic outlook. I did this myself in the year before I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.

Newman states, in summary:
If it be true that the principles of the later Church are the same as those of the earlier, then, whatever are the variations of belief between the two periods, the later in reality agrees more than it differs with the earlier, for principles are responsible for doctrines. Hence they who assert that the modern Roman system is the corruption of primitive theology are forced to discover some difference of principle between the one and the other; for instance, that the right of private judgment was secured to the early Church and has been lost to the later, or again, that the later Church rationalizes and the earlier went by faith.
(Ibid., ch. 7, section 6: conclusion)

This is true whether the theological considerations are those agreed upon by all, such as the Divinity of Christ, the Two Natures of Christ, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Original Sin, and the Canon of Scripture, or those denied by Protestants, such as the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, the papacy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Communion of Saints, priestly absolution, baptismal regeneration, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.

If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism, since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

One might say that an automobile was “corrupt” if the owner decided that it ran better with no muffler, no shocks, no air or fuel filters, half of its spark plugs, watered-down gas, no rear brakes, one headlight, no heat, three quarts low on oil, with half of its radiator coolant, etc. Corruption can consist of “subtraction” as well as “addition.” Protestantism’s charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

By and large, Protestantism merely asserts “sola Scriptura” without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those which are deemed to be either outright unbiblical or insufficiently grounded in Scripture to be authoritative, are jettisoned: the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Penance, the papacy, etc. Apart from the question of Tradition as a legitimate carrier (alongside and in harmony with Scripture) of Christian belief, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these “Catholic” doctrines than Protestants suppose.

One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
All well and good, but that doesn't help the current roman catholic predicament. There was no rc scholarship in Luthers day. Which is why the rcc stole his bible and re-distributed it as their own. Also why trent had no scholars to make an educated determination of the canon they were voting on. But thanks for the info.
Just got here...too many posts.
Could you tell me quick what IS the current Catholic predicament?