Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | Friday, November 10, 2006 | Dave Armstrong

Posted on 10/28/2013 12:50:17 PM PDT by GonzoII

(Bible verses: RSV)

The Old Testament in Catholic Bibles contains seven more books than are found in Protestant Bibles (46 and 39, respectively). Protestants call these seven books the Apocrypha and Catholics know them as the deuterocanonical books. These seven books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch. Also, Catholic Bibles contain an additional six chapters (107 verses) in the book of Esther and another three in the book of Daniel (174 verses). These books and chapters were found in Bible manuscripts in Greek only, and were not part of the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, as determined by the Jews.

All of these were dogmatically acknowledged as Scripture at the Council of Trent in 1548 (which means that Catholics were henceforth not allowed to question their canonicity), although the tradition of their inclusion was ancient. At the same time, the Council rejected 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses as part of Sacred Scripture (these are often included in collections of the "Apocrypha" as a separate unit).

The Catholic perspective on this issue is widely misunderstood. Protestants accuse Catholics of "adding" books to the Bible, while Catholics retort that Protestants have "booted out" part of Scripture. Catholics are able to offer very solid and reasonable arguments in defense of the scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books. These can be summarized as follows:

1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.

6) Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.

7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.

8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii).

9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.

[Later clarifying note, added on 9-13-07: the red words I no longer agree with, as stated, based on subsequent in-depth research that I have undertaken since 1994, when this was written (perhaps it was written as early as 1991). Like any careful, conscientious researcher, I sometimes (gladly) modify -- even sometimes reverse -- earlier understandings with further study. For my current opinions on Luther and the canon, see:

Luther's Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Books

Did Martin Luther Deny the Canonicity of Esther? ]


11)
The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.

[Later clarifying note, added on 9-13-07: Luther softened or rejected these more radical opinions in later, revised prefaces, some 20 years later, so that I would write this portion of my first book differently today, in light of my research done since 1994]
12) Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can't benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The "penance interpretation" is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of "Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day," and so forth.

As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:

13) Ironically, in some of the same verses where the New Testament is virtually quoting the "Apocrypha," doctrines are taught which are rejected by Protestantism, and which were a major reason why the deuterocanonical books were "demoted" by them. Therefore, it was not as easy to eliminate these disputed doctrines from the Bible as it was (and is) supposed, and Protestants still must grapple with much New Testament data which does not comport with their beliefs.

14) Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) "useful and good to read." Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans maintained them in this secondary sense also. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and Bishop's Bible (1568) both included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 contained the "Apocrypha" as a matter of course. And up to the present time many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Bible (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others.

15) The deuterocanonical books are read regularly in public worship in Anglicanism, and also among the Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants and Jews fully accept their value as historical and religious documents, useful for teaching, even though they deny them full canonical status.

It is apparent, then, that the Catholic "case" for these scriptural books carries a great deal of weight, certainly at the very least equal to the Protestant view.

Written in 1996 by Dave Armstrong. Included in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: pp. 259-264.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; bible; deuterocanonicals; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-180 next last
Comment #101 Removed by Moderator

Comment #102 Removed by Moderator

Comment #103 Removed by Moderator

Comment #104 Removed by Moderator

To: redleghunter

Go for it. Anything Catholic are you?


105 posted on 10/29/2013 4:13:14 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

Comment #106 Removed by Moderator

To: roamer_1

“Oh yeah. ME TOO. Funny how the liberals and the Roman church have to hide behind that ‘hate’ label.”

So, is FR run by liberals or the Roman Church?


107 posted on 10/29/2013 4:25:57 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

Comment #108 Removed by Moderator

To: vladimir998; Jim Robinson

I’m sure that Jim would have certain opinions on that. I’ve asked him in the past if FR is substantially influenced by the Catholic Faith, and he indicated then that it wasn’t.


109 posted on 10/29/2013 5:03:18 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: vladimir998

FR is run by a non-denominational Christian. I’m a believer but don’t belong to any organized religion.


111 posted on 10/29/2013 5:11:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

You were the poster who brought up his name. You used his name as a broad sweep against Christians. Please revisit your post.


112 posted on 10/29/2013 5:14:14 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

Comment #113 Removed by Moderator

To: redleghunter

He stuck with the historical sequence of the patriarchs.


114 posted on 10/29/2013 5:23:22 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

It is interesting a Roman Catholic brought up the “name that shall not be mentioned.” I responded. I responded based on “he who shall not be named” was used to broad brush Prots.

It is amazing just bringing up the name does on this forum (which initially I did not).

I am really not interested in inflammatory comic tracts or pictures. There are some who are and they are in your caucus. So please clean your side up.

I respect the RM rules. So should your caucus. “He who shall not be named” is banned those are the rules therefore all need to obey.


115 posted on 10/29/2013 5:27:05 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

There it is again. Smugness has its comfort.


116 posted on 10/29/2013 5:29:24 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Please explain.


117 posted on 10/29/2013 5:30:43 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter; MarkBsnr

This is a prime example of “baiting” the other side, IMO. Bringing up that name is done for one reason only: to lob insults in an attempt to start a war. The person who lobbed it first should be ashamed. And we ALL know who that was.


118 posted on 10/29/2013 5:33:09 PM PDT by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

Abel.. Enoch... Noah... Abraham: In 3 of 4 cases, Genesis has the most info about the guy. So in 3 of 4 cases, Paul cites Genesis. There’s no reason to assume any other reason. Genesis certainly would make his point about Enoch, since it declares he was deemed righteous by God (although this directly contradicts Calvinism’s doctrine of Total depravity). But he doesn’t cite Genesis; he instead adds a detail about Enoch not made clear in Genesis. Why? Because in this 1 case, there as a bible book that had more than Genesis.


119 posted on 10/29/2013 5:59:30 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

120 posted on 10/29/2013 6:15:31 PM PDT by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-180 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson