Posted on 07/11/2010 11:07:54 AM PDT by Gamecock
Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1 However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon, or standard writings of Scripture.
1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.
2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”
Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zecharias was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zacharias, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2
4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.
5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4
7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)
10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).
Sources
For your consideration
The Amish have the Apocrypha in their Bible.
As to point one, there are protocanonical works that are not quoted anywhere in the New Testament. Moreover there are works that are considered Apocrypha by all Christians that are referenced in the New Testament.
As to point two, when Jesus makes this reference he is speaking to a crowd that did not use the Greek canon. This argument begs the question by assuming that the assumptions of the audience He is addressing are correct, which is the point at issue.
As to point three, it also begs the question. It assumes that the exact same group that rejected Jesus as Messiah and expelled Christians from the synagogues (the Pharisees of Javneh) is a reliable authority as regards the canon. That assumption is highly suspect.
bookmark
As to point four, the Dead Sea Scrolls also provide no commentary on many protocanonical books either. The Essenes were a small, cultish group - there is no reason to consider them as a reliable authority for the canon either. Especially since the DSS provide commentary and texts for dozens of books that no Christian considers canonical.
As to point 5, Philo and Josephus were very idiosyncratic individuals who were hardly representative of the Jewish community as a whole. No Jewish community has ever received them as sages or authorities.
As to point 5, Philo and Josephus were very idiosyncratic individuals who were hardly representative of the Jewish community as a whole. No Jewish community has ever received them as sages or authorities.
As to point six, the statement is inaccurate. The deuterocanon was included in the some of the earliest canonical lists of the Church. It is not the practice of Ecumenical Council to invent new teachings but to confirm established ones that have been challenged.
As to point seven, Jerome may have questioned the deuterocanon but - as the argument itself effectively admits - he was overruled by the majority. Neither Cyril nor Athanasius rejected the deuterocanon - this claim appears to be newly invented. Origen may have, but Origen has never been accepted by East or West as an orthodox Father because of his many bizarre opinions - including the advisability of self-mutilation and his belief that the Devil would be saved.
Protestant anti-Catholics have a nasty habit of outright lying.
Case in point:
“•Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43).”
False. There was a collection so that sacrifices and prayers for the dead could be made. Sacrifices took money. Someone had to buy the animals.
Here’s what the Bible actually says:
He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.
Thus, no money was offered. Sacrifices were offered.
Anti-Catholics lie. They get away with it because they know most anti-Catholics are simply too lazy or stupid to actually crack open a book (even the Bible!) and look up the truth.
As to point eight, the deuterocanon was not always separated in the Scripture texts from the protocanon. It’s frequent placement between the Hebrew Scriptures and the the New Testament had more to do with the fact that the deuterocanon was, like the NT, written in Greek. No ancient edition followed the modern Protestant practice of placing them after the NT in an appendix.
As to point nine, there are inaccuracies (there is no talk of magic in the deuterocanon) and also question-begging. Do acts of charity for the living and the dead lead to sanctification? That’s a matter of debate - namely the Protestant notion that physical death, which Christ conquered, is able to create an unbridgeable separation between saints on earth and those who have gone to their reward.
As to point ten, there are protocanonical works which make no prophetic claims and even one, Esther, that does not even mention the Lord. If lack of prophetic character disqualifies a book, then the protocanon is also flawed.
Do you and other Catholics believe that?
Is that a Catholic doctrine?
You wrote:
“Do you and other Catholics believe that?”
Believe what? Be specific.
“Is that a Catholic doctrine?”
What? Be specific.
"He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death."
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (KJV ASV WBS NAS)
Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (ASV DBY YLT NAS)
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (KJV ASV DBY WBS YLT NAS)
1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (KJV ASV DBY WBS YLT NAS)
1) At the time of Christ the Deuterocanonical (falsely referred to in the article as Apocryphal) books were widely accepted by the Jewish community, especially by Hellenized Jews who used the Greek Septuagint. This is the version of the Old Testament that the early Christians adopted.
2) Regardless of the debate of whether there was an actual Council of Jamnia in A.D. 70, Jewish authorities did not settle on the canon of the third division of the Old Testament known as the Ketuvim or "Writings" until the end of the 1st century. Indeed there was rabbinic debate until A.D. 200. If we were to accept the validity of the Jewish authorities to pass judgment on the canon of scripture at this late date then we would be forced to reject the entire New Testament.
Rejection by many in the Catholic Church
The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent.
1) Notwithstanding a few isolated objections, there was near universal acceptance by the early Church for the Deuterocanonical books since they were included in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament used by the Church.
2) The present Catholic canon of scripture was declared by the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I. The same canon was also declared by the Council of Hippo in 393 and reaffirmed by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. The Deuterocanonical books were also included in the Latin Vulgate translations commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 383. In 405 Pope Innocent I sent a list of the canon of scripture to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. From this time there was no need to define the canon of scripture by an ecumenical council since the question was no longer in dispute. The definition of the Council of Trent only confirmed what the entire church accepted in opposition to the novel Protestant canon of scripture.
The question of the canon of scripture raises a fundamental question of church polity. Either the witness of the early Church as confirmed by the popes and bishops is a reliable authority or it is not. If it is, then that same witness that confirms Catholic belief is also reliable. If it is not, then we have no reliable authority to declare what is scripture and what is not; the Gospel of Thomas, anyone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.