Skip to comments.
What is the “Apocrypha”?
Fr. John Whiteford's Commentary and Reflections ^
| 07-19-2019
| Fr. John Whiteford
Posted on 10/06/2019 9:00:00 AM PDT by NRx
Question: "What do the terms "apocrypha" and "deuterocanonical" mean, and how does the Orthodox Church view them?"
The question of the Biblical canon is a somewhat complicated one, because it developed over a very long period of time, and there certainly have been some historical disagreements on the matter. The word "canon" comes the Greek word κανών, which means a measuring rod, or a rule. And so when we speak of the canon of Scripture, we are speaking of the lists of books that affirmed to be Scripture.
Christians have a precisely defined New Testament Canon, about which there is no dispute... at least not since the 4th century, and this is due in part because of a heretic by the name of
Marcion who produced a very truncated New Testament canon, which included only the Gospel of Luke and some of the Epistles of St. Paul, which he edited to fit his heretical views. And then there were also heretical books that claimed to be written by Apostles, but which were not which the Church wanted to clearly reject. There was never any dispute about most of the books of the New Testament, but there were a few books that were not immediately accepted throughout the Church, but were eventually.
When it comes to the Old Testament canon, there is a precisely defined core canon, and fairly well defined next layer, and then less clearly defined edges. So why the precision in the case of the new, but not the Old? This is partly because there was not nearly as much controversy on the question, which is not to say that there were no disagreements, but the level of concern over these disagreements did not rise to nearly the same level. It was not until the time of the Protestant Reformation that this question did become a bigger issue, because for Protestants who generally took a low view of Tradition, whether or not a book was really part of Scripture became almost an all or nothing question. Either the book was Scripture, in which case it had all authority; or it was not scripture, in which case it had essentially no authority, though it might be a matter of some historical interest.
When we speak of the Canonical books of the Old Testament, or the "Protocanonical" books as Roman Catholics put it, we have general agreement. These books are the same as the books recognized by the Jews as Scripture. The only difference you find is that in some canonical lists the books of Baruch is sometimes listed as part of these books, and Esther is not.
But what are the names used for the "extra" books that are not part of the undisputed Old Testament Canon? Many early Fathers simply made no distinction, and referred to them as Scripture. Then you have some sources that refer to these books as "non-canonical"... but we will need to consider further what they really mean by that. St. Athanasius the Great referred to these books as "readable" books -- books not included in the Jewish canon, but which could be read in Church in the services. Then you have the term "Deuterocanonical," which is, I think, a useful term, but it is a Roman Catholic term that came into use to counter the Protestant rejection of these books. The implication of this name is that these books comprise a second Old Testament Canon, or you could say a list of canonical books which were known not to have been accepted by the Jews, but which were accepted by Christians. Then you have Protestants who labeled these books as "Apocrypha." To these terms we could add the term "Pseudepigrapha", which is a label applied to many texts that are almost universally rejected, but which claim the names of Old Testament saints as their authors.
There is a very interesting comment by
Origen in his letter to Africanus (
ANF v. IV, pp 386ff.), in which he responds to Africanus, who had asked him why he quoted from the portion of the book of Daniel which contains the story of Susanna, which is not found in the Hebrew text. Origen responds that he was not unaware of this fact (after all, he produced a six column text of the Old Testament,
the Hexapla, which was the first critical edition of the Old Testament, and which compared the Hebrew text with various Greek editions). Origen defended the authenticity of this portion of Daniel. His response is detailed, but let me highlight a few points:
"And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things?
In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set. Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community. And I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. So far as to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew."
Two important points are made here: Christians should use the texts preserved by the Church, and not feel like we have to go cap in hand to the Jews to find out what the Bible is. However, it is important for us to know what texts they accept and do not, so that when speaking to them, we not appear to be ignorant, and thus harm our witness to them.
Skipping further on in the text we find Origen saying that the reason for many of the omissions in the Hebrew texts are because the Scribes and Pharisees omitted things that made them look bad:
"But probably to this you will say, Why then is the History not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha). As an example, take the story told about Isaiah; and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books."
Here Origen gives an interesting meaning to the term "Apocrypha" (hidden books). His argument is that the story of Susanna was omitted in the Hebrew text because it made the Jewish elders look bad. If you look at the Wisdom of Solomon, you could see how they might also have had incentive to have hidden this book too.
"Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected" (Wisdom 2:12-20).
This is a very clear prophecy of the attitude which the Jewish leaders would take toward Christ. This text was used very effectively by Christians in the Early Church, and the Jews had good reason to want to dismiss it.
I think Origen puts his finger on the reason why many Fathers made a distinction between the "canonical" books of the Old Testament which the Jews accepted, and the books which they did not accept. Even to this day, you still find these books referred to as "non-canonical" by contemporary Orthodox writers, who mean by that only that they are not in the Jewish canon.
For example, Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy, in
The Law of God, wrote:
"Besides the canonical books, a part of the Old Testament is composed of non-canonical books, sometimes called Apocrypha among non-Orthodox. These are books which the Jews lost and which are not in the contemporary Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They are found in the Greek translations of the Old Testament, made by the 70 translators of the Septuagint three centuries before the birth of Christ (271 B.C.). These book have been included in the Bible from ancient times and are considered by the Church to be sacred Scripture. The translation of the Septuagint is accorded special respect in the Orthodox Church. The Slavonic translation of the Bible was made from it.
To the non-canonical books of the Old Testament belong:
1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. The Wisdom of Solomon
4. Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Sirach
5. Baruch
6. Three books of Maccabees
7. The Second and Third book of Esdras
8. The additions to the (Book of Esther,) II Chronicles (The Prayer of Manasseh) and Daniel (The Song of the Youths, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon) (Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy, The Law Of God: For Study at Home and School (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996), p. 423).
While generally, not much is made of a distinction between the "canonical" and "deuterocanonical" books in the Orthodox, some writers continue to argue that there is a distinction, such as Fr. Michael Pomazansky:
"The Church recognizes 38 books of the Old Testament. After the example of the Old Testament Church, several of these books are joined to form a single book, bringing the number to twenty-two books, according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. These books, which were entered at some time into the Hebrew canon, are called "canonical." To them are joined a group of "non-canonical" books-that is, those which were not included in the Hebrew canon because they were written after the closing of the canon of the sacred Old Testament books. The Church accepts these latter books also as useful and instructive and in antiquity assigned them for instructive reading not only in homes but also in churches, which is why they have been called "ecclesiastical." The Church includes these books in a single volume of the Bible together with the canonical books. As a source of the teaching of the faith, the Church puts them in a secondary place and looks on them as an appendix to the canonical books. Certain of them are so close in merit to the Divinely-inspired books that, for example, in the 85th Apostolic Canon the three books of Maccabees and the book of Joshua the son of Sirach are numbered together with the canonical books, and, concerning all of them together it is said that they are "venerable and holy." However, this means only that they were respected in the ancient Church; but a distinction between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament has always been maintained in the Church (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, trans. Fr. Serpahim (Rose), (Platina, CA: St. Herman Press, 1984), p. 26f).
Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), on the other hand, says:
"In contemporary editions of the Bible the books of the Old Testament are subdivided into those books that are canonical and those not canonical. Those books that fall under the canonical category are understood to be those of the Hebrew canon. This canon (i.e. the list of books recognized as holy in the Jewish tradition) was formed over centuries and was finally solidified in the year 90 CE by the Sanhedrin in the Galilean city of Jamnia. The canonical texts differ from the non-canonical in their antiquity; the former were written in the period between the fifteenth and fifth centuries BCE, while the latter were written between the fourth and first centuries BCE. As for the number of non-canonical books concerned there are the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 2 and 3 Esdras, the letter of Jeremiah, Baruch and 3 Maccabees, and also the Prayer of Manasseh at the end of 2 Chronicles, as well as various parts of the book of Esther, Psalm 151, and three fragments from the book of the Prophet Daniel (3.24-90, 13, 14).
The Protestant Bible does not include the non-canonical books of the Old Testament, and in this way it differs from the Orthodox just as from the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible includes the non-canonical books under the category of "deuterocanonical" (this term was coined by the Council of Trent in 1546). For the Orthodox Christian, the difference between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament is of a conventional character inasmuch as the question is not about an Orthodox or Christian canon, but is about the Jewish canon, completed independently from Christianity. In the Orthodox Church, the basic criterion for the specific canonicity of this or that book in the Old Testament is its use in the divine services. In this regard one cannot consider the Wisdom of Solomon and those fragments of the book of Daniel which are absent from the Hebrew canon, but which hold an important place in Orthodox services, to be non-canonical. Sometimes the non-canonical books, from the viewpoint of the Hebrew canon and the "deutercanonical" Catholic canon, in Orthodox usage are called by the Greek term anaginoskomena, αναγινώσκωμένα (i.e. acknowledged, recommended reading).
While all of the canonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the "seventy interpreters" made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the "Masoretic," was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition). Taking into account the three factors enumerated above, St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that "in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions" (Orthodox Christianity, Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, (New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2012) p. 33f).
To complicate matters further,
if you look at the Russian Synodal Bible and compare with the standard Orthodox edition of the Bible in Greek, there are some books that included in one that are not in the other (the Greek Bible included 4th Maccabees, and the Russian Bible includes 2nd Esdras (also called 4th Esdras in some editions), and so what should we make of all of this?
If you think of the Tradition as a target, with concentric circles, you could put the Gospels in the middle, the writings of the apostles in the in the next ring, maybe the Law of Moses, in the next, the prophets in the next, the writings in the next, the deutrocanonical books in the next, the wrings of those who knew the Apostle in the next, the Ecumenical Canons in the next, etc. The only debate would be which ring to put them on... and ultimately, is that the most important question? For a Protestant, this is a huge question. For the Orthodox, it is not so much.
For most of the books in the Orthodox Bible, there is no question that they are Scripture in the full sense. The Deuterocanonical books are certainly Scripture as well, though some Fathers and some writers would argue that they have secondary authority. Then there are some books that are included more along the lines of being appendices to the Scriptures (4th Maccabees and 2nd Esdras). They all are part of the larger Tradition, and they all have to be understood within the context of that larger Tradition -- and that is the key thing to keep in mind.
For more information, see:
Stump the Priest: The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text
This discussion with Gary Michuta (a Roman Catholic apologists) is of interest:
He has also written a book entitled "
The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments," which has a lot of useful information on this subject.
TOPICS: History; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apocrypha
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-174 next last
To: daniel1212
The pure speculation or even wishful thinking is that the 1st. LXX contained [the Deuterocanonical books].
At the end of the day historical testimony is toward the Deuteros not being part of after the 1st century LXX, nor part of the most authoritative canon.
The case for a closed canon which excluded the Deuterocanonical books, and which was received universally by all the Jews, is not as strong as you would present. First, even in Palestine there was not a unanimity concerning the canon. While the Pharisees accepted what is now the Masoretic canon, the Sadducees did not. They only accepted the first five books of the Torah. The present Masoretic canon probably did not reach its current form until the 2nd century. According to Lawrence H. Schiffman, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at Yeshiva University:
While virtually all the Writings were regarded as canonical by the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., arguments continued regarding the status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, and these disputes are attested in rabbinic literature. Second Temple literature indicates that a collection of Writings existed as early as the second century B.C.E. but was not regarded as formally closed
One piece of evidence is that the Kaige Recension, a Greek copy of Scripture that was produced by the Pharisees in the first century B.C., contains Baruch and the additions of Daniel. Additionally evidence is the fact that Rabbi Akiba de Joseph, the head of the rabbinical school in Jamnia in the 2nd century, did not just list what was in the canon, but felt that it was necessary to explicitly exclude the Deuterocanonical books. This he would not have had to do unless there were some Jews who did think that they were canonical.
The idea of two separate canons, a longer Alexandrian one and a shorter Palestinian one, was originally proposed by Protestant scholars in the 18th century to explain why Christians and Jews held two separate canons. While A.C. Sundberg has disputed this theory, his conclusion did not lead to a single Jewish canon along the lines of the Palestinian one. Rather, he posited that the canon of the Writings was not yet closed, and that the Septuagint, along with some of the Deuterocanonical books were used even in Palestine.
That being said, the idea of two canons is again gaining popularity. See Ph. Guilluame, "New Light on the Nebiim form Alexandria: A Chronography to Replace the Deuteronomistic History," The Journal of Hebrew Scripture, Volume 5, Article 9. Evidence to support the idea of an established Alexandrian canon which contains the Deuterocanonical books comes from the fact that the biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews contains the Deuterocanonical books to this day.
Look at your question. The answer to the last sentence is in the first one. "Christians" added them which is why the manuscript evidence from hundreds of years later show them, while the Palestinian Hebrew canon, which what Christ only quoted from, did not.
Even if we were to agree that there was a single canon among the Jews that excluded the Deuterocanonical books, you yourself admit that they were added by the early Christians. The acceptance of these books was already well enough established by the 4th century that the manuscript history shows their inclusion. Guided by the Holy Spirit, this they would be free to do just as much as accept the books of the New Testament as Scripture. As for the oft made claim that there are no references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, I would suggest that you take a look at this.
To: Petrosius
The case for a closed canon which excluded the Deuterocanonical books, and which was received universally by all the Jews, is not as strong as you would present. First, even in Palestine there was not a unanimity concerning the canon. While the Pharisees accepted what is now the Masoretic canon, the Sadducees did not. They only accepted the first five books of the Torah. The present Masoretic canon probably did not reach its current form until the 2nd century. According to Lawrence H. Schiffman, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at Yeshiva University: I nowhere argued or claimed a a closed canon universally accepted by all the Jews, so why are you resorting to a strawman? There is not even a universal uniform canon today.
Instead i actually stated "it is to be doubted that" all held to the 22/24 book Josephus/Pharisaic canon, but argued that "there was an established authoritative body of writings of God by the time of Christ," this being (even if nor formally closed), the one held by those who sat in the most authoritative canon seat of Moses, the tripartite one most likely referred to as Scripture by Christ.
We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time.... Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)
"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49)
"it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh)
While virtually all the Writings were regarded as canonical by the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., arguments continued regarding the status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, and these disputes are attested in rabbinic literature.
"The Writings" do not refer to the Deuteros, while of course there was some debate in the whole, but as Lawrence H. Schiffman (thanks for the name at least) also states in the work you did not cite. Emphasis is mine:
The term "apocrypha" refers to those books which are found in the Hellenistic Jewish Bible canon of Alexandria, Egypt, but not in the Palestinian Jewish canon . The Hellenistic canon was preserved by the Christian church in the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles, and the Palestinian canon was handed down in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible. ...
The desire to supplement Scripture was part of a general tendency in the Greco-Roman period toward "rewritten Bible." In such works the authors, out of reverence for the Bible, sought to extend the biblical tradition and often applied it to the issues of their own day. ...
aruch (1 Baruch) is a hortatory work which was treated as a supplement to Jeremiah. It is a pseudepigraphon, purporting to have been written by Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah... The first part had to have been written by the onset of the first century B.C.E., but the date of the second half cannot be established. It may postdate the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 12-,121, 123,125, 126, Lawrence H Schiffman, PH D, Sol Scharfstein, Ethel and Irvine Edelman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies; KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1991)
Thus according to even your source there was a Palestinian Jewish canon, even if there was still some degree of debate i circles, while here again is testimony against the Deuteros being part of the Palestinian canon, with some books even postdating the completion of the Jewish LXX (132 BC)
The idea of two separate future histrcan could sat the same of our canons, a longer Alexandrian one and a shorter Palestinian one, was originally proposed by Protestant scholars in the 18th century to explain why Christians and Jews held two separate canons.
Thank God for more objective historians, yet it is the strong warrant for a shorter Palestinian canon being what is referred to as Scripture by the NT church that is the issue, and as cited, your own Catholic Encyclopedia among other sources affirms,
the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. ...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism. (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
One piece of evidence is that the Kaige Recension, a Greek copy of Scripture that was produced by the Pharisees in the first century B.C., contains Baruch and the additions of Daniel.
And Luther's Bible also contained (most of) the Deuteros, even if in a separate section, as did (for the record) the Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes just prior to Trent, which soon received papal sanction.
Additionally evidence is the fact that Rabbi Akiba de Joseph, the head of the rabbinical school in Jamnia in the 2nd century, did not just list what was in the canon, but felt that it was necessary to explicitly exclude the Deuterocanonical books.
This claim does not help your cause, since modern research research considers the so-called The Council of Jamnia to be hypothetical at best, and or rejects that it excluded the Deuterocanonical books. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
Evidence to support the idea of an established Alexandrian canon which contains the Deuterocanonical books comes from the fact that the biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews contains the Deuterocanonical books to this day.
And more, but which is not argued against, as the issue is what "Scripture" "It is written," The Word of God/the Lord" meant in regards the most authoritative 1st. c. canon, and properly referred Christ, who never quoted any Divine text from outside the smaller canon.
Even if we were to agree that there was a single canon among the Jews that excluded the Deuterocanonical books,
Still arguing a strawman from start to finish.
you yourself admit that they were added by the early Christians. The acceptance of these books was already well enough established by the 4th century that the manuscript history shows their inclusion.
Which is not in contention, except that this was not a single universally held canon either. Now as for what your argument really is:
Guided by the Holy Spirit,
Presuably you mean essentially only those who followed Augustine were...
this they would be free to do just as much as accept the books of the New Testament as Scripture.
As can a government do freely today.
As for the oft made claim that there are no references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, I would suggest that you take a look at this.
So this is your argument? Another strawman, for I did not say there are no references to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, for the term is broadly used, and as Jimmky Akin says who also provides a page of "references," "it is not always obvious whether something is a genuine reference...many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book..As a result, many scholarly works simply give an enormous catalogue of all proposed references and leave it to the individual interpreter to decide whether a given reference is actual or not.I will follow the same procedure until I have time to sit down with the following references, sort through them, and decide which I can prove to be references are to deutercanonical books... (http://jimmyakin.com/deuterocanonical-references-in-the-new-testament)
At least he is trying to be honest, while your (actual) reference is from the notorious so-called "scripturecatholic" who seems to see references to deutercanonical books in every closet, so to speak. From what I see he loos at part of a sentence, and or a allusion or similar thought, "like sheep without a shepherd," and somehow this means that the NT is referencing that Judith 11:19. But he never provides the texts side by side, or even hypertexts the verses, and instead he provides his description of what he sees as a reference. Thus (of course) "John 6:35-59 Jesus Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21. But which states, "They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty." (Sir 24:21) which actually contradicts John 6:35 - 59, which teaches, "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35)
Akin has not had to time to sort thru his, nor am I am going to look thru all of this hungry RC, while these kind of "references," or even describing something found in a books of the Deuteros, like `Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Maccabees 7, is simply not the same as quoting or referring to something as Scripture, it is written, the Word of God/the Lord, " as denote authority. Yet as even Divine truths spoken by pagans can be quoted, then such intro is the strongest testimony to authority, such as,
: as the Scripture hath said (John 7:38 ); What saith the Scripture (Galatians 4:30 ); it is (stands) written, emphasizing the permanent validity of the Old Testament revelation (Mark 1:2 ; Romans 1:17 ; Romans 3:10 ); that it might be fulfilled, emphasizing the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Matthew 4:14 , Matthew 12:17 , Matthew 21:4 ); God hath said, He saith, the Holy Spirit says, which personify Scripture and reflect its divine dimension (Romans 9:25 ; Romans 10:21 ; 2 Corinthians 6:16 ); Moses, David, or Isaiah says which emphasize the human element in Scripture (Romans 10:16 , Romans 10:19-20 ; Hebrews 4:7 ). - https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/o/old-testament-quotations-in-the-new-testament.html
What I did argue was that,
That there was an established authoritative body of writings of God by the time of Christ is manifest by the frequent quotes or references to them as authoratative by the Lord Jesus and the NT writers. Which was never manifest as being an issue with the Scribes and Pharisees whom the Lord affirmed sat in the magisterial seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) to whom conditional obedience was enjoined.
Otherwise it seems the argument is that since the Roman church government tended to side with the larger canon, yet leaving freedom for the faithful to disagree until the Reformation made it an issue, then we are supposed to accept it,
And why? Because Rome also says has the marks of the one true apostolic church (OTAC) based upon her own interpretation, the do the EOs who significantly disagree with you all? .
If that is the argument then neither should have allowed us to read the Bible (well, Rome tried to hinder that ). For as said, distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Or is the argument that as asked before when your resorted to the authority argument, an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God), etc.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
If that is the case then it settles the case in my favor on that basis alone.
142
posted on
10/12/2019 5:38:53 PM PDT
by
daniel1212
( Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
To: daniel1212
I nowhere argued or claimed a a closed canon universally accepted by all the Jews, so why are you resorting to a strawman? There is not even a universal uniform canon today. If there was no closed canon, then you cannot hold Christians to the later established Masoretic canon.
The term "apocrypha" refers to those books which are found in the Hellenistic Jewish Bible canon of Alexandria, Egypt, but not in the Palestinian Jewish canon . The Hellenistic canon was preserved by the Christian church in the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles, and the Palestinian canon was handed down in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible. ...
But this is exactly the Catholic position; the Church received and follows the Alexandrian canon rather than the Palestinian one. The Christian Church cannot be held bound by the decision of 1st/2nd century Jews to limit themselves to the narrower Palestinian canon. By this time the authority over all of Scripture had been translated from the Jews to the Christian Church.
Thus according to even your source there was a Palestinian Jewish canon, even if there was still some degree of debate i circles, while here again is testimony against the Deuteros being part of the Palestinian canon, with some books even postdating the completion of the Jewish LXX (132 BC)
The existence of a shorter Palestinian canon is irrelevant if the early Christian Church had accepted the longer Alexandrian canon that had exited alongside it.
Thank God for more objective historians, yet it is the strong warrant for a shorter Palestinian canon being what is referred to as Scripture by the NT church that is the issue, and as cited, your own Catholic Encyclopedia among other sources affirms,
Since there was no single, and universally accepted, canon among the Jews, it is anachronistic to say that the New Testament Church meant this when they referred to Scripture. This is especially true since they quoted the Old Testament using the Septuagint, a product of Alexandria, rather than the Hebrew Old Testament.
This claim does not help your cause, since modern research research considers the so-called The Council of Jamnia to be hypothetical at best, and or rejects that it excluded the Deuterocanonical books. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
I did not mention the Council of Jamnia. While that council most likely did not exist, there was a rabbinical school there, of which Akiba was a member.
And more, but which is not argued against, as the issue is what "Scripture" "It is written," The Word of God/the Lord" meant in regards the most authoritative 1st. c. canon, and properly referred Christ, who never quoted any Divine text from outside the smaller canon.
But there was no one authoritative canon, the issue being disputed among the Jews.
Which is not in contention, except that this was not a single universally held canon either.
I never said that there was. No one can deny that the issue of the canon was disputed, that is until the 4th century, when the Church made authoritative ruling, even if it was not, at the time, an infallible one. That the question arose again later does not negate that the issue was considered settled until the late Middle Ages. Even then, the majority of opinion was in favor of retaining the Deuterocanonical books that had been accepted by the Church since the 4th century.
As regards to the reference to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, while individual references can be questioned, the overall conclusion must be that the New Testament was influenced by these books.
That there was an established authoritative body of writings of God by the time of Christ is manifest by the frequent quotes or references to them as authoratative by the Lord Jesus and the NT writers. Which was never manifest as being an issue with the Scribes and Pharisees whom the Lord affirmed sat in the magisterial seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) to whom conditional obedience was enjoined.
But as you have admitted, this authoritative body was not a closed canon. After the establishment of the Church, whatever authority that was possessed by the Seat of Moses was transferred to the Church, which decided in favor of the larger Alexandrian canon.
Otherwise it seems the argument is that since the Roman church government tended to side with the larger canon, yet leaving freedom for the faithful to disagree until the Reformation made it an issue, then we are supposed to accept it.
Exactly, except that I would take issue with your characterization of the "Roman church government," a pejorative term which seeks to limit the Catholic Church to the pope and Rome. It was the universal Church, in union with the pope, which accepted the larger canon. But why should any Christian accept the decision of the Protestant Reformers to reject what the universal Church had accepted for over a thousand years? The best that you could argue for is that the question is still open and in dispute among Christians, with the Protestant position being in the minority.
To: Petrosius
If there was no closed canon, then you cannot hold Christians to the later established Masoretic canon.
But although you all did not have a closed canon (and some RCs even debate whether Trent actually closed it, vs. defining what books it presently consisted of) you hold them to the later binding defined canon. And that the canon was not universally accepted, and the faithful had freedom to doubt or disagree on its exact contents, has already been established, if seemingly forgotten.
Thus once again the issue is that of authority which I refuted, yes which again is your recourse. That the Jews later established the Masoretic canon is not the basis for our non-compelled consensus on our canon, and that this was that which Christ referred as Scripture, but its establishment is essentially due to to the enduring enduring qualities and supernatural attestation of these books, despite the Deuteros being included in Scripture for a long time. They are not simply true, but have a unique anointing in veracity. Hebrews 4:12. I would say the Wisdom of Solomon comes closest to Scripture, but is falsely assigned to him.
But this is exactly the Catholic position; the Church received and follows the Alexandrian canon rather than the Palestinian one. The Christian Church cannot be held bound by the decision of 1st/2nd century Jews to limit themselves to the narrower Palestinian canon. By this time the authority over all of Scripture had been translated from the Jews to the Christian Church.
So either the NT church could not be bound by any judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses, or they could but dissent based upon evidential warrant for the former being wrong, but somehow "The Church" later becomes (conditionally) infallible - if she does say so herself - so that it cannot be wrong despite evidential warrant to the contrary. For the latter is disallowed because she is the infallible judge of whether there is or not, thus the Assumption, etc.
That is essentially your position, but the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome was not how the NT church began or ruled. Look upthread.
If you disagree, show me where ensured magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome was exampled and or essential for authority and preservation of Truth in the OT and the NT. Want to try Caiaphas? Or save time trying for it is not there, despite strenuous extrapolative attempts.
The existence of a shorter Palestinian canon is irrelevant if the early Christian Church had accepted the longer Alexandrian canon that had exited alongside it.
Which presumes it was infallible, and infallibly defined it them, neither of which is the case.
Since there was no single, and universally accepted, canon among the Jews, it is anachronistic to say that the New Testament Church meant this when they referred to Scripture.
That is simply an absurd argument, since there need not be a universally accepted canon for the church to hold to one (and the most authoritative) body of inspired writings as being the correct one, which is what your own finally church presumed to do!
And there still is not one universally accepted identical canon among all Catholics, unless you exclude the EOs, and RCs necessarily must make an issue of exactness. The analogical difference here with that of Prots vs. EO with Rome is only a matter of degrees.
This is especially true since they quoted the Old Testament using the Septuagint, a product of Alexandria, rather than the Hebrew Old Testament.
Rather, the anachronism is on you, since you are the one reading a 4th century LXX, even with its different canon than that of Trent, into the 1st c., despite extensive historical testimony contrary to that presumption. The original 3rd century BC commission to pen the LXX was, according to tradition, only that of translating the Torah into Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria with more later being added, but as much shown, the weight of evidence is against the 1st c. LXX containing the Deuteros, if all of it contents of were even penned by it completion in 132 BC.
I did not mention the Council of Jamnia. While that council most likely did not exist, there was a rabbinical school there, of which Akiba was a member.
You invoked the leader of the "rabbinical school in Jamnia" as explicitly excluding the Deuterocanonical books, which claim is dubious.
But there was no one authoritative canon, the issue being disputed among the Jews.
Again, there not not be one universally held authoritative for Christ and the NT church to reference one authoritative body of writings, which quite evidentially did exist, even most likely concurring with that of the Pharisees, whose authority itself was not universally recognized. And again, if you mean one infallibly defined/indisputable canon, then for RCs, that would wait 1400 years.
Which is not in contention, except that this was not a single universally held canon either.
I never said that there was.
But you mispresented /argued against me as one arguing "for a closed canon which excluded the Deuterocanonical books," which I never did!
No one can deny that the issue of the canon was disputed, that is until the 4th century, when the Church made authoritative ruling, even if it was not, at the time, an infallible one. That the question arose again later does not negate that the issue was considered settled until the late Middle Ages.
Wrong again. You asserted that from 405 "From this point on there was universal acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books in the West," yet a documented, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
Even then, the majority of opinion was in favor of retaining the Deuterocanonical books that had been accepted by the Church since the 4th century.
Even then, forbidding disagreement was was hardly universally affirmed, with only 44% (with 27% nay, 29% abstaining) voting to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.
As regards to the reference to the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, while individual references can be questioned, the overall conclusion must be that the New Testament was influenced by these books.
Using that "influenced" goal post then even the books of pagans can be affirmed as Scripture.
But as you have admitted, this authoritative body was not a closed canon.
As you must admit as regards yours, at least until 1546.
After the establishment of the Church, whatever authority that was possessed by the Seat of Moses was transferred to the Church, which decided in favor of the larger Alexandrian canon.
Then it follows that if the doctrinal judgment of those who are actually said to sit in the seat of Moses can be faulty (despite clearly having binding authority), then so can those who claim to be its successors. Even after allowing doubt and disagreement among her faithful for over 1400 post-apostolic years.
And if so, and if God can manifestly raise up deliverance from tyrannical rulers and governments in establishing new ones, and raise up children of Abraham from stones, then so can God raise up men and churches from stones who professes the essential evangelical faith of the gospel of Peter and Paul, that of Christ. Would to God that Catholics were born again by it, as well as all Prots.
Exactly, except that I would take issue with your characterization of the "Roman church government," a pejorative term which seeks to limit the Catholic Church to the pope and Rome.
Not again. "Rome" is to the Catholic church as "Washington" is to the USA, denoting the official seat of its government, the Vatican.
And need I show you that Rome herself used the term "Roman Church" in identifying herself even well before the Reformation (1075), as well as after it? If that is necessarily a pejorative term then you must correct your church.
It was the universal Church, in union with the pope,
You mean in exclusion to those "other Catholics," those of
Eastern Orthodoxy, official name Orthodox Catholic Church (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eastern-Orthodoxy); The official designation of the church in its liturgical and canonical texts is "the Orthodox Catholic Church" (https://www.dowoca.org/orthodoxy); "Eastern Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy, One of the three branches of world Christianity and the major Christian church in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the Orthodox church, also sometimes called the Eastern church, or the Greek Orthodox, or Orthodox Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox Church... (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Published 1911; http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/orthodox.htm); or the Oriental Church, or the Christian Church of the East, or the Orthodox Catholic Church, or the Graeco-Russian Church. (https://www.oca.org/questions/teaching/what-is-the-proper-name-for-the-orthodox-church)
But why should any Christian accept the decision of the Protestant Reformers to reject what the universal Church had accepted for over a thousand years?
They did not in either case. The establishment of the 66 book Prot canon is not essentially due to the Reformers decree, though certainly influenced by the teaching of such, but as with the common people ascertaining that men such as John the Baptist were of God - despite the judgment of those in leadership - it was been the ongoing purity power and probity of what we recognize as the written word of God that is the essential basis for its establishment.
Which, despite no binding "infallible" decree, is arguably overall more settled among Prots overall (%-wise) than among those who accept a larger canon. Thus if unity by authority is your argument, then you do not have a real case.
In addition, there simply was and is no uniformly accepted canon in the universal Church for over a thousand years, regardless of how often you repeat that propaganda. We disagree with what Trent later settled for RCs and which many esteemed faithful RCs did without ecclesial censure in their time until Trent made the majority position binding upon her own.
Thus as you tend to forget or ignore some of what refutes you while failing to refute what you do not, your real argument is that of authority, that as the authoritative magisterial stewards of Scripture we must submit to Rome. Which again, in principal works against you. Maybe its time to move on.
144
posted on
10/13/2019 4:02:47 AM PDT
by
daniel1212
( Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
To: daniel1212
That the Jews later established the Masoretic canon is not the basis for our non-compelled consensus on our canon, and that this was that which Christ referred as Scripture, but its establishment is essentially due to to the enduring enduring qualities and supernatural attestation of these books, despite the Deuteros being included in Scripture for a long time. They are not simply true, but have a unique anointing in veracity. Hebrews 4:12. I would say the Wisdom of Solomon comes closest to Scripture, but is falsely assigned to him.
So when and where does the Protestant Bible of 66 books show up?
145
posted on
10/13/2019 4:54:22 AM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: af_vet_1981
So when and where does the Protestant Bible of 66 books show up? Such ignorant trolling is being ignored.
146
posted on
10/13/2019 7:56:41 AM PDT
by
daniel1212
( Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
To: daniel1212
147
posted on
10/13/2019 12:10:04 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: daniel1212
For the record and the ignorant or insolent: The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
Of the Old Testament:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
I. Samuel
II. Samuel
I. Kings
II. Kings
I. Chronicles
II. Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
The Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Of the New Testament:
The Gospels according to
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
The Acts of the Apostles
Pauls Epistles
To the Romans
Corinthians I.
Corinthians II.
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
Thessalonians I.
Thessalonians II.
To Timothy I.
To Timothy II.
To Titus
To Philemon
The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle of James
The first and second Epistles of Peter
The first, second, and third Epistles of John
The Epistle of Jude
The Revelation of John
All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life
148
posted on
10/13/2019 5:03:48 PM PDT
by
daniel1212
( Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
To: daniel1212
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV),
is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England,
begun in 1604 and completed as well as published in 1611 under the sponsorship of James VI and I.
The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith.
Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England,
it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.
The Church of England used the Authorized Version of the Bible (KJV).
1611 KJV Original Book Names
Viewing the 1611 King James Version Bible Book Names. Click to switch to the Standard KJV Bible Books List
1611 BOOK NAME IN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1611 BOOK NAME IN TEXT
Genesis
THE FIRST BOOKE OF MOSES, called Genesis.
Exodus
THE SECOND BOOKE OF Moses, called Exodus.
Leuiticus
THE THIRD BOOKE OF Moses, called Leviticus.
Numbers
THE FOURTH BOOKE OF Moses, called Numbers.
Deuteronomie
THE FIFTH BOOKE OF Moses, called Deuteronomie.
Ioshua
THE BOOKE OF Ioshua.
Iudges
THE BOOKE OF Iudges.
Ruth
THE BOOKE OF Ruth.
1. Samuel
THE FIRST BOOKE of Samuel, otherwise called, The first Booke of the Kings.
2. Samuel
THE SECOND BOOKE of Samuel, otherwise called, The second Booke of the Kings.
1. Kings
THE FIRST BOOKE OF the Kings, commonly called The third Booke of the Kings.
2. Kings
THE SECOND BOOKE OF the Kings, commonly called The fourth Booke of the Kings.
1. Chronicles
THE FIRST BOOKE of the Chronicles.
2. Chronicles
THE SECOND BOOKE of the Chronicles.
Ezrah
EZRA.
Nehemiah
THE BOOKE OF Nehemiah.
Ester
THE BOOKE OF Esther.
Iob
THE BOOKE OF Iob.
Psalmes
THE BOOKE OF Psalmes.
Prouerbs
THE PROVERBES.
Ecclesiastes
ECCLESIASTES, or the Preacher
Song of Solomon
The Song of Solomon.
Isaiah
THE BOOKE OF THE Prophet Isaiah.
Ieremiah
THE BOOKE OF THE Prophet Ieremiah.
Lamentations
The Lamentations of Ieremiah.
Ezekiel
THE BOOKE OF THE Prophet Ezekiel.
Daniel
THE BOOKE OF Daniel.
Hosea
HOSEA.
Ioel
IOEL.
Amos
AMOS.
Obadiah
OBADIAH.
Ionah
IONAH.
Micah
MICAH.
Nahvm
NAHVM.
Habakkvk
HABAKKVK.
Zephaniah
ZEPHANIAH.
Haggai
HAGGAI.
Zechariah
ZECHARIAH.
Malachi
MALACHI.
Matthew
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING to S. Matthew.
Marke
The Gospel according to S. Marke.
Luke
The Gospel according to S. Luke.
Iohn
The Gospel according to S. John.
The Actes
THE ACTES OF the Apostles.
The Epistle to the Romanes
THE EPISTLE OF PAVL THE Apostle to the Romanes.
1. Corinthians
THE FIRST EPISTLE of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.
2. Corinthians
THE SECOND EPISTLE of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.
Galatians
THE EPISTLE OF Paul to the Galatians.
Ephesians
THE EPISTLE OF PAVL THE Apostle to the Ephesians.
Philippians
THE EPISTLE OF PAVL THE Apostle to the Philippeans.
Colossians
THE EPISTLE OF PAVL THE Apostle to the Colossians.
1. Thessalonians
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians.
2. Thessalonians
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians.
1. Timotheus
THE FIRST EPISTLE of Paul the Apostle to Timothie.
2. Timotheus
THE SECOND EPISTLE of Paul the Apostle to Timothie.
Titus
THE EPISTLE OF Paul to Titus.
Philemon
THE EPISTLE OF Paul to Philemon.
To the Hebrewes
THE EPISTLE OF PAVL the Apostle to the Hebrewes.
The Epistle of Iames
THE GENERALL Epistle of Iames.
1. Peter
THE FIRST EPISTLE generall of Peter.
2. Peter
THE SECOND EPISTLE generall of Peter.
1. Iohn
THE FIRST EPISTLE generall of Iohn.
2. Iohn
The second Epistle of Iohn.
3. Iohn
The third Epistle of Iohn.
Iude
THE GENERALL Epistle of Iude.
Reuelation
THE REVELATION of S. Iohn the Diuine.
1. Esdras
I. ESDRAS.
2. Esdras
II. ESDRAS.
Tobit
TOBIT.
Iudeth
IVDETH.
The rest of Esther
THE BOOKE OF Esther.
Wisedome
The Wisdome of Solomon.
Ecclesiasticus
THE WISDOME OF Iesus the sonne of Sirach, Or Ecclesiasticus.
Baruch
BARVCH.
Epistle of Ieremiah
The Epistle of Ieremie.
The song of the three children.
The Song of the three holy children, which followeth in the third Chapter of Daniel after this place, [And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God, and blessing the Lord. ] That which followeth is not in the Hebrew; to wit, [Then Azarias stood vp vnto these wordes, [And Nabuchodonofor.]
The story of Susanna.
The historie of Susanna, set apart from the beginning of Daniel, because it is not in Hebrew, as neither the narration of Bel and the Dragon.
The idole Bel and the Dragon.
The history of the destruction of Bel and the Dragon, cut off from the end of Daniel.
The prayer of Manasseh.
The prayer of Manasses King of Iuda, when he was holden captiue in Babylon.
1. Maccabees
The first booke of the Maccabees.
2. Maccabees
The second booke of the Maccabees.
149
posted on
10/13/2019 5:45:13 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: af_vet_1981
OK, if you are a glutton for punishment:
Only ignorance or guile can explain why one would argue that all that a translation contains means all such is considered Scripture, vs what constitutes the Protestant Bible of 66 books of Scripture (which contextually was the issue, vs what may be considered merely fit to read).
Based upon your presumption then Luther considered the Deuteros to be Scripture since he included most of these books in his Bible - between the Old and New Testaments. Thus these works are sometimes known as inter-testamental books.
You could have simply accessed the documented WP page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha:
“Likewise the English-language King James Version (KJV) of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled “Books called Apocrypha”, or just “Apocrypha” at the running page header.[38] following the Geneva Bible of 1560 almost exactly.”
“These same books are also listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.”
“All [}Protestant] English translations of the Bible printed in the sixteenth century included a section or appendix for Apocryphal books. Matthew’s Bible, published in 1537, contains all the Apocrypha of the later King James Version in an inter-testamental section. The 1538 Myles Coverdale Bible contained an Apocrypha that excluded Baruch and the Prayer of Manasseh. The 1560 Geneva Bible placed the Prayer of Manasseh after 2 Chronicles; the rest of the Apocrypha were placed in an inter-testamental section.”
“All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha,[42] though separately to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name, “The Apocrypha.”[43] In 1826,[44] the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to print the Apocrypha,[45] resulting in a decision that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They reasoned that not printing the Apocrypha within the Bible would prove to be less costly to produce.[46][47] Since that time most modern editions of the Bible and reprintings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section.”
These the 66 book Prot canon is shown to have been overall universally settled early on, more so than that of Catholicism which claims a universally settled canon from the 4th century.
Your only argument then is you asked “where does the Protestant Bible of 66 books show up?,” versus where does the Protestant canon of 66 books show up, which is simply sophistry, or ignorance, since canonicity was the issue.
Thus once again your posts have earned the title of “trolling,” and fit to be ignored.
Bye.
150
posted on
10/14/2019 5:55:36 AM PDT
by
daniel1212
( Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
To: daniel1212
The Authorized Version of the Protestant Bible (KJV 1611) contained a note from the translators who used the word "Bible" sixteen times in that essay. They defended their work of translating the Bible, even calling it "the whole Bible" in one place. In "the whole Bible" the KJV translators included those books in the order between the Old Testament and New Testament books. Those books remained for over 200 years in the Authorized Version (Protestant) and those books were not removed until 182(5/6), or 1885.
If it was "the whole Bible" in 1611 (and prior to that), it was diminished
to save money after 1825 or 1885.
Were the translators wrong in 1611 (translating "the whole Bible"), or the publishers wrong in 182(5/6)/1885 (trying to save money)? Of course, if it were really about money, they could have dropped other books from the Old Testament.
The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.
Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago. Some say it was removed because of not finding the books in the original Hebrew manuscripts. Others claim it wasn't removed by the church, but by printers to cut costs in distributing Bibles in the United States. Both sides tend to cite the same verses that warn against adding or subtracting from the Bible: Revelation 22:18. The word 'apocrypha' means 'hidden.' Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before 70 A.D. contained parts of the apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit [source].
151
posted on
10/14/2019 8:04:02 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: af_vet_1981
True to
form , here you are vainly trying to gain a foothold when you lost the war as regards what books the Reformers considered Scripture. "Bible" comes from ta biblia (the books), the Latin form of biblosa book of books, but obviously the use of word does not mean all that a Bible contains is Scripture (including words added by translators, as those in italics in the KJV). Luther himself referred to his work of translating "the Bible" in his
preface to it, and in the progress of the work he founded a Collegium Biblieum, or Bible club, but aforetime had already made distinction btwn Scripture proper and that which is not but which are included therein. "At last the whole Bible, including the Apocrypha as "books not equal to the Holy Scriptures, yet useful and good to read," was completed in 1534, and printed with numerous woodcuts." (http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html)
Also, King James himself said, As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist (Book I:13, Basilicon Doron). Article 6 of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion established by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 1801, referring to the Apocrypha, states: "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine;" (Thirty-nine Articles of Religion).
As for saving money, publishing was costly, and with the lack of demand for these obscure books it made sense to leave them out in order providing Scripture.
You have now been provided more than is warranted in response to your flailing failing attempts to support what cannot be, that the 66 book Prot. canon of Scripture was not overall settled early on the Reformation, and thus you have no right to expect more here.
152
posted on
10/15/2019 7:18:59 AM PDT
by
daniel1212
( Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
To: daniel1212
... one would argue that all that a translation contains means all such is considered Scripture, ...
One can find the claim that the Apocrypha was removed from the Authorized Version (Protestant) English translation to save on costs unpersuasive.
The Apocrypha controversy of the 1820s was a debate around the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the issue of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in Bibles it printed for missionary work. The Society did include the Apocrypha in Bibles for use in continental Europe, where it was normal for Protestant as well as Catholic readers to have the texts of the Apocrypha. Robert Haldane criticised this policy.[1]
The British and Foreign Bible Society had in fact dropped the Apocrypha from its bibles published in English in 1804. This decision broke with the tradition of Myles Coverdale, of consolidating the Apocrypha between the two Testaments.[2]
Haldane and William Thorpe began a general campaign in 1821, against all Bibles with the Apocrypha and their printing with funds raised from British sources. The Society was divided over the issue, but the majority view favoured the existing policy of case-by-case inclusion. In Spring 1826 an attempt to reach a compromise with the Haldane ("Recordite") view broke down. As a result, the major Scottish branches in Edinburgh and Glasgow left the Society. Most Scottish branches followed, and a few in England.[3]
... British Dissenters, particularly Scottish Presbyterians, objected to the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Bible on doctrinal grounds and forced a split in the British and Foreign Bible Society. So it was not about saving money; it was about getting rid of the deuterocanonical books from the Bible.
153
posted on
10/15/2019 5:33:24 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: daniel1212
Is there any portion of the Bible that depends on a book not in the Canon for confirmation ?
Is there any portion of the Protestant Bible that depends on a book not in the Protestant Canon for confirmation ?
- And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
- And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
- Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
John, Catholic chapter ten, Protestant verses twenty two to twenty four,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
The feast of the dedication (Hanukkah) did not appear anywhere in the Old Testament, and yet it appears here in the New Testament as a holyday in the Canon of Holydays, as it were. The Messiah Himself sanctifies the Feast of the Dedication (Rededication of the Holy Temple) with His presence at the Temple, affirming its authenticity.
The Gospel of John has a dependency on Second Maccabees, for it is no where else taught.
- Whereas we then are about to celebrate the purification, we have written unto you, and ye shall do well, if ye keep the same days.
- We hope also, that the God, that delivered all his people, and gave them all an heritage, and the kingdom, and the priesthood, and the sanctuary,
- As he promised in the law, will shortly have mercy upon us, and gather us together out of every land under heaven into the holy place: for he hath delivered us out of great troubles, and hath purified the place.
Second Maccabees, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses sixteen to eighteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
154
posted on
10/15/2019 6:04:57 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: af_vet_1981
... British Dissenters, particularly Scottish Presbyterians, objected to the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Bible on doctrinal grounds and forced a split in the British and Foreign Bible Society. So it was not about saving money; it was about getting rid of the deuterocanonical books from the Bible. For them, which goes back to the reason for it, which was established thru many posts before you showed up with your ignorant or sophistical and diversionary trolling. Will your ignorant vain attempts ever cease?
155
posted on
10/16/2019 2:08:55 AM PDT
by
daniel1212
( Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
To: af_vet_1981
The Gospel of John has a dependency on Second Maccabees, for it is no where else taught. And Acts 17:28 has "dependency" upon wisdom from within paganism, which does not make such Scripture: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28)
And before you showed up distinction was made btwn types of references vs quoting or invoking Hebrew canonical Scripture as Scripture. Once again you are engaging in vain rabble-rousing.
156
posted on
10/16/2019 2:09:10 AM PDT
by
daniel1212
( Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
To: daniel1212
And Acts 17:28 has "dependency" upon wisdom from within paganism, which does not make such Scripture: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28)
It is true, and it is Scripture now ... as the quote above shows.
Second Maccabees is not pagan or Gentile. It is Jewish. The Messiah Himself sanctified the Feast of the Dedication by His presence in the re-dedicated Holy Temple. The one holy catholic and apostolic Church included Second Maccabees where the Feast of the Dedication is taught and enjoined, (as the Book of Esther where the Feast of Purim is taught) in the Bible. It has remained there, even for Protestants, until the 19th Century.
157
posted on
10/16/2019 3:27:52 AM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: af_vet_1981; daniel1212
Why all the fuss over these debatable ‘books’ added to/left out of the bible?
Catholics pick and choose over the rest of it any way.
Most famously (or Infamous; if you prefer):
Call no man father.
158
posted on
10/16/2019 3:34:22 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: af_vet_1981
Why all the fuss?
When an Ethiopian eunuch got saved and baptized with only the Book of Isaiah for a text!
159
posted on
10/16/2019 3:37:17 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: Elsie
Why all the fuss over these debatable books added to/left out of the bible? They need actual Scriptural warrant for their distinctives which they can only wish the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed provides.
2 Macc. 12:44-45 is thus invoked as supporting mythical RC Purgatory , yet what it teaches is about men who died due to being idolators, thus being guilty of a mortal sin for which there is no hope, and prayers and sacrifice being made for them that they might attain to the resurrection (of the just), yet which those in RC Purgatory are assured of any way (though their imagined suffering can be reduced by offerings of the faithful in this realm).
But that is another subject. Read my other posts here as regards the exclusion of these from the Palestinian canon of the Hebrews.
160
posted on
10/16/2019 5:33:26 AM PDT
by
daniel1212
( Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-174 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson