What do you think of Apocryphal Books?

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

I'd like to get people's views on the subject. There are many bible's that don't include certain books as they are classed to be apocryphal, that is spurious and questionable as to their divine authorship. How do you feel? Do you feel that those books should be included in every bible or that they really are uninspired of God?

 

[michel]

I'd like to get people's views on the subject. There are many bible's that don't include certain books as they are classed to be apocryphal, that is spurious and questionable as to their divine authorship. How do you feel? Do you feel that those books should be included in every bible or that they really are uninspired of God?

Ah well, and I thought my vocabulary was good! - Had to look up your 'apocryphal' I'm afraid - still always time to learn (and I can try to use the excuse that this isn't my native language).

I honestly don't know, is the answer - but I think if the texts were originally there, they ought to be reproduced - in all fairness. I don't really think anyone has a right to 'pick and choose' bits of the Bible, but as I'm not exactly much of a theologian, that's just the answer of a Christian layman.

 

[James the Persian]

I'd like to get people's views on the subject. There are many bible's that don't include certain books as they are classed to be apocryphal, that is spurious and questionable as to their divine authorship. How do you feel? Do you feel that those books should be included in every bible or that they really are uninspired of God?

I'll assume that by apocrypha you are referring to the Old Testament deterocannon (because that's what Protestants usually mean by the term) rather than the genuinely apocryphal writings of such groups as the Gnostics. If you mean the latter (spurious New Testament books) then I'd be interested to know of any group that includes them in their Bible.

The Old Testament books referred to by some as apocryphal are still all in our Bibles (Orthodox ones) as well as Oriental Orthodox ones. The vast majority are also found in Roman Catholic Bibles. Nobody ever questioned their canonicity prior to the Reformation because they were part of the Septuagint that was the OT accepted by the Church (the Masoretic Text being a later one). This is why both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches only called councils in defence of the deuterocannon after the Reformation (the Orthodox council was the Synod of Iasi and, I believe the Roman Catholic one was the Council of Trent). Having said this, it's interesting to note that the deuterocannonicals were present in the original KJV, so not all Protestants expunged them immediately.

If for 1500 years the whole Church considered these books to be Scripture (albeit secondary, hence the term deuterocannon) what right did the reformers have to remove them? Even more serious a question, from my point of view, was how can a group of people who claim faith is based on Scripture alone justify removing part of said Scripture? Where is the list of books in the Bible which precludes the deuterocannon? Quite simply, there isn't one, which is a pretty compelling argument against sola scriptura as far as I can see. In fact, the only reason to remove the books was to conform to the Hebrew Masoretic Text(MT) but, as I mentioned above, this version is actually newer than the Septuagint(LXX) - the MT is post-Christian while the LXX was compiled in the 3rd to 1st centuries BC. In addition, it was never accepted by the Church as Her Old Testament and the vast majority of OT references in the NT are unambiguously from the LXX.

As you can probably tell, I think the reformers made a grave error in removing the deuterocannonical books from the OT. It helped their case in some respects (prayers for the dead, for instance, are mentioned in the Maccabees) but that's hardly a good reason for altering the canon. Otherwise, why keep the Epistle of James? Luther thought that was spurious and wanted to remove it as it teaches against sola fide. I'd say that the sola scripturalists who perpetrated this mutilation of scripture are condemned by one of their favourite verses, for 'all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness'. (2 Timothy 3:16) The deuterocannonicals certainly should be in the Bible and should be read by Christians.

James

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Thanks for your amazing insight once again James! :clap

 

[Scott1]

Thanks for your amazing insight once again James! :clap

Ditto.:clap

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

When I was at school my KJV bible had the apocrypha at the back followed by the concordance and subject index. Some how it got lost in a move and I have never been able to replace it. They seem to be like hens teeth these days.

Terry
_______________________________________
Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

 

[James the Persian]

Thanks for the thanks, Scott and ThisShouldMakeSense. Glad to be of help.

I was just wondering Scott (because this isn't really my area), was I right about the Council of Trent? Is that the Roman Catholic council I was thinking of?

James

 

[Mister Emu]

I have a question,

I am nto against the deuterocannon in any way, and from what little I have seen it seems that they would make good moral teachings, however growing up I was taught that they were not inspired, say any more than confucious(again what little I know, I like).

How do my Orthodox and Roman Catholic brothers and sisters see it? Do you view it as inspired?

 

[James the Persian]

I have a question,

I am nto against the deuterocannon in any way, and from what little I have seen it seems that they would make good moral teachings, however growing up I was taught that they were not inspired, say any more than confucious(again what little I know, I like).

How do my Orthodox and Roman Catholic brothers and sisters see it? Do you view it as inspired?

The short answer is yes. A longer answer (at least from an Orthodox perspective, I'm not sure of the precise Roman Catholic position), is that the deuterocannonical books are Scripture and they are inspired, but they are of secondary importance to the rest of the canon. We don't see the inspiration of a text as black and white, but rather in degrees, nor would we limit inspired texts to those in the Biblical canon (which is nonsensical anyway - the Church never had one fixed canon. At least three existed side by side in the pre-Chalcedonian Church). For instance, Enoch is not in the Orthodox canon. I'd still consider it inspired and valuable to some degree, particularly as it is referenced in the New Testament. The Didache I would likewise call inspired, ditto the Shepherd of Hermas (both of which were very highly regarded in the early Church) but they aren't in the canon and nor would I suggest they be added.

We, not being sola scripturalists, tend not to view the canon of scripture as quite so black and white as many Protestants. The core of it is certainly settled and has been for many centuries, but it's a bit fuzzy round the edges. We are only too aware that Scripture whilst inspired by God was not written by Him but by fallible men and collected by the Church. Therefore there will always be degrees of error and inspiration in any scriptural text - it is not all truth or all error. It is also not inconceivable (though, I grant, highly unlikely) that at some future council the Church might expand or reduce the canon. This would cause us no real difficulties, but for the sola scripturalist if there is no immutable canon of scripture the whole foundation of their theology collapses. This is why, I feel, sola scripturalist Protestants feel the need for black and white definitions of what is or is not inspired and feel uncomfortable with the deuterocannonicals or books like the Shepherd of Hermas. It's also why I feel the whole sola scripturalist edifice is built on a foundation of sand.

James

 

[Mister Emu]

Ok, thank you for showing your church's view. I love learning

 

[Prophet Rashad]

First of all, let's identify that the word apocrypha is a Greek word meaning "hidden." This identifies that the origin of the Apocryphal books is unknown, or doubtful.

The Old Testament Apocrypha include either 14 or 15 books, depending on the method of counting, which were written in the period of 200 B.C. to 100 A.D. Catholic versions of the Bible include 12 of these, but do not consider 1st & 2nd Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh to be canonical, which is interesting. The Church of England accepts the Apocrypha as "semi-canonical."

Some of the books of the Apocrypha, such as 1st Macabees and Ecclesiasticus, are truly interesting, but that does not mean that they are inspired. There are many valid reasons why the Apocrypha cannot be accepted as Scripture.

1. These books were never included in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. Josephus expressly limited the Hebrew canon to the same books of our Old Testament. Josephus knew of other Jewish writings down to his time, but he did not regard them as having equal authority with the canonical books.

2. These books, as far as the evidence goes, were never accepted as canonical by Jesus and His apostles.

3. These books were not accepted as Scripture by such Jewish writers as Philo, Josephus, and others, as well as the early church fathers.

4. These books do not evidence intrinsic qualities of inspiration. Great portions of these books are obviously legendary and fictitious. They often contain historical, chronological and geographical errors.

The apocryphal books are rightfully rejected from our Bible.

 

[Scott1]

James,

This is why both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches only called councils in defence of the deuterocannon after the Reformation (the Orthodox council was the Synod of Iasi and, I believe the Roman Catholic one was the Council of Trent).

The Council of Trent was the last Council to define the Canon... but it was a just a "official" declaration of what was already in place.

As far as I have read (you are much better educated on the Canons) the Western Canon stayed the same since about the year 390.



"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema." Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John." Pope Innocent (regn. A.D. 401-417), Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of Toulose, 6:7,13 (A.D. 405).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can someone please explain to me what the Apocryphal Books are about? I was going to borrow my friends feancas Catholic Bible and read them, but they moved out of state before I got the chance.
All I know it was forbidden in the Baptist church I used to go to.

 

[Scott1]

Hiya Luke,

Here's one take on the OT Canon: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[James the Persian]

James,
The Council of Trent was the last Council to define the Canon... but it was a just a "official" declaration of what was already in place.

As far as I have read (you are much better educated on the Canons) the Western Canon stayed the same since about the year 390.



"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema." Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John." Pope Innocent (regn. A.D. 401-417), Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of Toulose, 6:7,13 (A.D. 405).

Scott,

I realised this. The same is true for us with respect to the Synod of Iasi. I was just concerned that maybe I'd misremembered the name of the Roman Catholic council. To the best of my knowledge both councils merely reiterated that the deuterocanonical books were scripture at that time because the reformers were denying this. Prior to this late period nobody, it appears, had ever questioned their canonicity.

James

 

[James the Persian]

First of all, let's identify that the word apocrypha is a Greek word meaning "hidden." This identifies that the origin of the Apocryphal books is unknown, or doubtful.

Correct, but given that the use of apocrypha for these books is not the ancient usage but one which came about with the reformers who removed them, I fail to see what relevance the meaning of the term is. The usual term for the books prior to the Reformation (the deuterocanon) has no such connotations meaning, as it does, nothing more than secondary canon.

The Old Testament Apocrypha include either 14 or 15 books, depending on the method of counting, which were written in the period of 200 B.C. to 100 A.D. Catholic versions of the Bible include 12 of these, but do not consider 1st & 2nd Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh to be canonical, which is interesting. The Church of England accepts the Apocrypha as "semi-canonical."

Firstly, your numbering is out. See the table here:

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/otbooks.html

You're right that the RCs reject 1 Esdras, but you're wrong about 2 Esdras and, to make things more complicated, they do actually have books called 1 and 2 Esdras, it's just that these correspond to 2 Esdras and Nehemiah (Ezra and Nehemiah for Protestants) in the Greek canon. It's actually in the number of books of Maccabees that we have our greatest difference. You're also way out on your dating. None of the deuterocannonicals are post-Christian, the entire Septuagint(LXX) being completed by, at the latest, the 1st century BC.

These books were never included in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. Josephus expressly limited the Hebrew canon to the same books of our Old Testament. Josephus knew of other Jewish writings down to his time, but he did not regard them as having equal authority with the canonical books.

True, but they were included in the LXX, which was the original and accepted Old Testament of the Church. I find it strange when Christians appeal to Jewish authorities over Christian ones.

These books, as far as the evidence goes, were never accepted as canonical by Jesus and His apostles.

Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. The LXX is unambiguously the source of the overwhelming number of OT quotes in the NT (something like 80%). The LXX contained the deuterocannonicals and already existed a century before the Incarnation. Paul writes approvingly to Timothy, in Greek, about the Scriptures he's read since a child. Given that the Greek translation was the LXX and and that this was the OT in favour among diaspora Jews, it's safe to say that this is the version Paul was referring to. It was only much later that diaspora Jews replaced the LXX with the MT, and not once in the NT is there any negative mention of the deuterocanon.

These books were not accepted as Scripture by such Jewish writers as Philo, Josephus, and others, as well as the early church fathers.

On the Jewish writers you are correct (but as I said above, so what?). On the Church Fathers you are quite wrong. The Church Fathers refer to all sorts of inspired works including such books as Enoch, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas that aren't even in the canon. To my knowledge not one Church Father ever wrote a single word against the deuterocanonical books.

These books do not evidence intrinsic qualities of inspiration. Great portions of these books are obviously legendary and fictitious. They often contain historical, chronological and geographical errors.

So you say, but where is your evidence? And if they are so obviously uninspired, why did nobody reject them prior to the Reformation? (I would note here that an error in a book does not speak against inspiration - the scriptures were written by men not dictated by God).

The apocryphal books are rightfully rejected from our Bible.

Well, I disagree strongly. I'll trust the first 15 centuries over the last 5 and Catholic (by which I do not mean just Roman Catholic) sources over Protestant ones any day. The arguments you've offered so far are pretty weak and factually inaccurate. Do you have any more convincing ones?

James

 

[enton]

I'd like to get people's views on the subject. There are many bible's that don't include certain books as they are classed to be apocryphal, that is spurious and questionable as to their divine authorship. How do you feel? Do you feel that those books should be included in every bible or that they really are uninspired of God?

As the term connotes they`re apocryphal. All I can say is that it`s okay to read them there`s no banning but remember they`re apocryphal. The Bible is composed of 66 books considered by christians as inspired writings.