Replies

Newpapers also record historical accounts. But they do not carry the weight of inspired Scripture. Similarly, the Apocryphal books reference some historical events, but should not be considered to carry the same authority as Scripture.

You’re really stretching to say that Jesus actually “quoted” from Maccabees. He said things that may sound like what’s written in Maccabees, but he never “quoted” as authoritative the text. He never says, “It is written” and then follows that with a quote directly from the Apocrypha. He does, however, quote from the OT.

The Apostle Paul quotes pagan poets and writers (1 Corinthians 15:33; Acts 17:28). If simply referencing a text bumps it up into the realm of authoritative Scripture, then these Pagan texts are biblical as well. But in order to consider a text as Scripture, there’s a higher standard.

If Maccabees is to be considered inspired and authoritative, then suicide (for example) should be commended, as it is in 2 Maccabees 14:41ff.

If you consider the Apocrypha to be inspired and authoritative, then you will come to believe extra-biblical doctrines, such as Purgatory, indulgences, praying for the dead, and so on.

But it is not.

I just Googled this topic, and found some paragraphs that show the Apocryphal books as extra-biblical. Let me just quote those, rather than take time to write them myself:

The Apocrypha was used alongside the writings of the Church fathers. Manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint had them as an addendum to the canonical Old Testament. Philo a Jewish philosopher in A.D. 40 quotes from the Old Testament and recognizes the standard threefold division but never quotes the Apocrypha as inspired. In the 2nd Century The Jewish historian Josephus deliberately excludes it. He wrote: “The Jews had only twenty-two books that deserved belief, but those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes (the Apocrypha) were not of equal credit with the rest, in which period they had no prophets at all” (Lib. 1, Con. Apion.).

What makes this interesting is modern findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls in the Qumran caves date back to as early as 250 B.C. most are from 100-150 B.C.. Within the 800 scrolls, all the Old Testament books were found minus Esther, neither were there any of the Apocryphal writings. The more one is aware of Hebrew and there culture the less likely they accepted these books. Both Jerome and Origin knew Hebrew; the first Latin Bibles were translated from the Septuagint and included the Apocrypha. Jerome’s Vulgate had distinguished the Apocrypha as canonical and was assigned a secondary status. He at first refused to translate these books into Latin but later made a quick translation it was after his death they were brought into the vulgate from the Latin version.

The early church fathers were not supportive of its acceptance Polycarp, Ignatius , Clement mention the New Testament only as inspired. Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius as well as Origin and Jerome later rejected this. Athanasius is clear on what was accepted as scripture this was not the apocryphal writings. The Scriptures were spread out throughout the world and almost all that we have today is the same that was accepted in the 2nd century by the majority of the Church.

No Roman Catholic was required to believe that the Apocrypha was Scripture, until 1,500 years later at the council of Trent. Most believe it was Rome’s reaction to the new movement of getting back to the Scriptures that were God breathed....

By contrast to the possible and vague references to the apocrypha, the references to the Old Testament books are both clear, and more importantly they imply that those books carried divine authority. For example in John 10:34,35 the Lord Jesus quotes from Psalm 82:6, and immediately comments that the scriptures cannot be broken. For the apostle Paul, “it is written” (in the Old Testament books) was the sure ground for his doctrinal teaching. Thus the New Testament testifies to divine authority of the Old Testament. Significantly there are no such quotations to the apocrypha that imply divine inspiration of these books.

"Newpapers also record historical accounts. But they do not carry the weight of inspired Scripture. Similarly, the Apocryphal books reference some historical events, but should not be considered to carry the same authority as Scripture." Chronicles records sacred history as does Maccabees. Other than the fact that Chronicles was originally written in Hebrews, and Maccabees in Greek, I see no difference between the two. "He said things that may sound like what’s written in Maccabees, but he never “quoted” as authoritative the text." Again, there are other books that you consider to be authoritative, (Esther in particular), that Jesus does not quote from, yet you consider them to be scripture. Clearly your standard is not, "books that Jesus quoted". So why are you upholding a standard that you do not believe? "He does, however, quote from the OT." But not from all the books that you consider canon. That is a problem for you to explain why include Esther and take out Maccabees. "If Maccabees is to be considered inspired and authoritative, then suicide should be commended, as it is in 2 Maccabees 14:41ff." Now this is another argument. Now you are arguing that because Maccabees teaches something that is contrary to the word of God, that therefore, it should not be included in scripture. But what does Maccabees actually say? 2 Maccabees 37-46 "Now was there accused unto Nicanor one Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, a lover of his countrymen, and a man of very good report, who for his kindness was called a father of the Jews. For in the former times, when they mingled not themselves with the Gentiles, he had been accused of Judaism, and did boldly jeopard his body and life with all vehemency for the religion of the Jews. So Nicanor, willing to declare the hate that he bare unto the Jews, sent above five hundred men of war to take him: For he thought by taking him to do the Jews much hurt. Now when the multitude would have taken the tower, and violently broken into the outer door, and bade that fire should be brought to burn it, he being ready to be taken on every side fell upon his sword; Choosing rather to die manfully, than to come into the hands of the wicked, to be abused otherwise than beseemed his noble birth: But missing his stroke through haste, the multitude also rushing within the doors, he ran boldly up to the wall, and cast himself down manfully among the thickest of them. But they quickly giving back, and a space being made, he fell down into the midst of the void place. Nevertheless, while there was yet breath within him, being inflamed with anger, he rose up; and though his blood gushed out like spouts of water, and his wounds were grievous, yet he ran through the midst of the throng; and standing upon a steep rock, When as his blood was now quite gone, he plucked out his bowels, and taking them in both his hands, he cast them upon the throng, and calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to restore him those again, he thus died. So what we see is that Maccabees explains why he committed suicide rather than being taken and defiled by the enemy. It also explains that he was of noble birth. The Greek uses: εὐγενῶς which is best rendered as noble to describe his sacrifice. "If you consider the Apocrypha to be inspired and authoritative, then you will come to believe extra-biblical doctrines, such as Purgatory, indulgences, praying for the dead, and so on." So we get to the heart of the matter then. You don't believe they should be a part of the bible because that would mean admitting that the Catholic church is right. Think about that for awhile. You are saying that rather than admit that the Catholic church is right, you'd rather tear out books of the bible. "I just Googled this topic, and found some paragraphs that show the Apocryphal books as extra-biblical." How about we spare you some time. Look, we're familiar with these arguments because we've dealt with them before. If you're having to google to find answers than I would suggest we need to step back and examine the question, why do you believe that they shouldn't be used? "The Apocrypha was used alongside the writings of the Church fathers." The LXX makes no distinction between 2 Maccabees and Esther. Both are historical sacred literature, that tell the story of God working among mankind. "Manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint had them as an addendum to the canonical Old Testament." Again, the LXX treated Maccabees no different from Esther. "In the 2nd Century The Jewish historian Josephus deliberately excludes it. He wrote: 'The Jews had only twenty-two books that deserved belief, but those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes (the Apocrypha) were not of equal credit with the rest, in which period they had no prophets at all” (Lib. 1, Con. Apion.).' But Maccabees is not a prophetic book. This is the problem. Josephus is arguing that because there are no prophets there can be no scripture, but this is not true. Not all of scripture is prophesy. He is correct that there were no prophets after Artaxerxes, but Maccabees is not prophesy. This is why the LXX is correct and Josephus is wrong. "What makes this interesting is modern findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls in the Qumran caves date back to as early as 250 B.C. most are from 100-150 B.C.. Within the 800 scrolls, all the Old Testament books were found minus Esther, neither were there any of the Apocryphal writings." Uh, there were plenty of apocryphal writings including Enoch. :) "Jerome’s Vulgate had distinguished the Apocrypha as canonical and was assigned a secondary status. He at first refused to translate these books into Latin but later made a quick translation it was after his death they were brought into the vulgate from the Latin version." He accepted that they WERE canonical and included them for this very reason. That they were written in Greek is not sufficient cause to exclude them. "The early church fathers were not supportive of its acceptance Polycarp, Ignatius , Clement mention the New Testament only as inspired. Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius as well as Origin and Jerome later rejected this. Athanasius is clear on what was accepted as scripture this was not the apocryphal writings. The Scriptures were spread out throughout the world and almost all that we have today is the same that was accepted in the 2nd century by the majority of the Church." Yet the majority of the Church did accept the books as inspired. If you are arguing that the Church has the authority to set the Canon, than you must also accept the fact that the Vulgate set the canon to include these books. "No Roman Catholic was required to believe that the Apocrypha was Scripture, until 1,500 years later at the council of Trent." Balderdash. The Vulgate, which was the first bible with a set canon, included these books, and was the primary bible used in the West for over 1000 years. "By contrast to the possible and vague references to the apocrypha, the references to the Old Testament books are both clear, and more importantly they imply that those books carried divine authority. For example in John 10:34,35 the Lord Jesus quotes from Psalm 82:6, and immediately comments that the scriptures cannot be broken." So then you should have no problem finding a canon of the NT written by John. "For the apostle Paul, “it is written” (in the Old Testament books) was the sure ground for his doctrinal teaching. Thus the New Testament testifies to divine authority of the Old Testament. Significantly there are no such quotations to the apocrypha that imply divine inspiration of these books." How about Esther? Do we see this in Esther or are you simply being dishonest?