Apocrypha Books

[jaybird]

There was. They were the original followers called to be apostles.
Others followed.

well duhh, i meant in reference to books being called canon. barnabas and hermas were apostles not of the 12, yet their works are not included. Paul an apostle not of the 12, his works make it. make sense?

 

[Jim Parker]

i dont see how the Didache would be any different than Mark or Luke. Mark and Luke are not the teacjhings of Mark and Luke, but the teachings of Jesus, same as Didache does with the 12.

All the Gospels are the teaching of Jesus as is the rest of the NT.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were considered to be of APOSTOLIC AUTHORSHIP. (As was the rest of the NT)
The Didache is a compilation of the apostolic teaching by an UNKNOWN author.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I am certainly not an expert in the language of the times but my understanding was Greek was the language of the learned, Aramaic the everyday language but Hebrew was used in the Synagogue when reading scripture. I doubt the everyday populace was fluent in Greek though they probably knew some simply from having contact with Greek speakers.....if that is incorrect please link something authoritative for me....

 

[Jim Parker]

well duhh, i meant in reference to books being called canon. barnabas and hermas were apostles not of the 12, yet their works are not included. Paul an apostle not of the 12, his works make it. make sense?

The Gospel of Barnabas is a late (centuries later) document and certainly not written by Barnabas. It is pseudopigraphical. The writer wrote as if he were Barnabas. There are many such "gospels" purporting to be various apostles and members of the Lord's loyal band of disciples. (Like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.)
We know nothing about Hermas except that he was extended a greeting by Paul at Rom 16:14 so there is no indication that he was ever an apostle or even that he was the author of "The Shepherd of Hermas."

 

[Jim Parker]

my understanding was Greek was the language of the learned,

Classica Greek was the language of the learned.
The NT scriptures are written in "Koine" Greek; the language of the market place. (Or, as my Greek Prof. used to say; "I seen him when he done it." Greek.)
The average 1st century Jew could not read the Hebrew of the OT which was why the LXX was produced; so that the average Jew could read the scriptures. The Rabbi's and scribes would be able to read the Hebrew but not the average Jew or believing Gentile.
The scriptures which Jesus and the NT writers quoted is consistently the LXX. (Though I did read somewhere that Paul would correct the LXX where it deviated from the Hebrew.)


iakov the fool

 

[jaybird]

The Gospel of Barnabas is a late (centuries later) document and certainly not written by Barnabas. It is pseudopigraphical. The writer wrote as if he were Barnabas. There are many such "gospels" purporting to be various apostles and members of the Lord's loyal band of disciples. (Like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.)
We know nothing about Hermas except that he was extended a greeting by Paul at Rom 16:14 so there is no indication that he was ever an apostle or even that he was the author of "The Shepherd of Hermas."

how do we know barnabas was not originally written by him and later copied by another like many other books? his writings were referenced a lot by early church fathers.

 

[reba]

This thread is moving to Apologetics

 

[Jim Parker]

how do we know barnabas was not originally written by him and later copied by another like many other books? his writings were referenced a lot by early church fathers.

I don't know.

 

[Pegasus]

The Scriptures to which the writers of the NT referred were the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the OT complied around 200 BC. It was the most commonly used because very few people spoke the Hebrew in which the OT had been written but everyone spoke Greek. The LXX contained the apocrypha.

The concept of "inspired, inerrant scripture" is a modern one developed in reaction to the very liberal interpretations of many leading modern scholars and which led to the "Fundamentalist" movement of early 20th century USA.

The early church based it's determination on NT canon in part on apostolic authorship which resulted in the Didache being excluded because, though containing apostolic teaching, it was not the work of any specific apostle.

So when people start talking about what is "inspired" and what is not, for the most part, they are speaking from a lack of information. It is far from the "cut and dried" results so often offered as irrefutable fact. It is a bit arrogant for any man to declare "God hath said this but not that."

But you don't have to read the if you don't like them. I don't care much for "Numbers"; I find it tedious. And I don't spend much time with the Revelation since it is John's best effort at rendering his ecstatic, apocalyptic visions into human language. Because of the ambiguity of his visions, it, as well as Daniel's apocalyptic, ecstatic visions, Revelation has been used by a wide variety of charlatans to fabricate astounding and wonderful new ear-tickling new winds of doctrine.

iakov the fool

Not quite what was the subject. I did not mention inerrancy but presented the views of early church fathers, some doctors, who clearly argued for a lesser status of the deutercanon books in question.

The bottom line is they thought them good for edification, liturgy but not to determine doctrine. If anyone actually read my post, that would be clear.

It should also be clear that Luther and the other reformers were not engaging in a new thought of chucking the deutercanons as the meme of many pitch.

The OT canon was open leading even into Trent. This is most notable in the opinions of two highly respected Catholic theologians. One of which debated Luther at Worms.

The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin, waded into the dispute leading up to and during Trent. He noted one respected theologian stanchly loyal to the Pope, Cardinal Seripando. Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin elaborates:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome,Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially thePsalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense ofthe word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted.St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree ofauthority when he gives ahigher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, thebooks of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruchare only “canonici etecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in hiscommentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B.Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

Jedin continues:

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

Catholic historian Hubert Jedin also adds later:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

The next Cardinal to raise opposition at Trent was Cardinal Cajetan:


In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ). In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the OldTestament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor bethou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For thewords as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule forconfirming matters of faith. Yet, theymay be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification ofthe faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustinesays, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

Cajetan Responds

 

[Pegasus]

so how did Luke, Mark, and the writings of Paul make it to the canon?

The tradition is Luke's Gospel was at the request of Paul and Mark under Peter.

 

[francisdesales]

People need to consider that there was also a series of Deuterocanonical books in the NEW Testament, as well. SOME people also disagreed with their inclusion into the Canon. A number of early Catholics didn't think much of Revelation. Who REALLY wrote 2 Peter? James? We know a famous person who didn't care for it in the 16th century, as well... The simple fact is that most early Catholics were hardly unanimous about too many factors of the faith. Thus, the several councils just to clear up who Jesus was and His relationship to the Father. The history is clear on this.

The point? The Church has determined what 'her' Scriptures are and has ruled as such. There really is no way, outside of that ruling, that one can come up with a set of standards to say "this belongs and that one doesn't" WITHOUT the Church.

Now, actual "Apocrypha", those books were determined not to belong in the Canon. So one must be careful on using the terms "Deuterocanonical" (second canon) and "Apocrypha" (hidden). The so-called OT Deuterocanonical were not hidden, they are all found in the Septuagint, which was available well before the Incarnation of our Lord. The Gospel of Thomas was not a letter passed to the various Catholic communities, such as the Letter of James. It was clearly meant for the Gnostics, who purposely HID such knowledge from the masses.

Wow, that was fun... Haven't done this in years.

 

[francisdesales]

so how did Luke, Mark, and the writings of Paul make it to the canon?

Because the Church said they were Sacred Scriptures, inspired by God, useful for teaching, preaching and living the life of a Christian. They accurately expressed the oral teachings and traditions once given and are said to have come "from" the Apostles, although to the ancient, that didn't mean that one of the 12 was the original writer. Thus, they also accepted 2 Peter as from the hand of Peter, although most will say that Peter did not write it himself, but a follower did.

 

[jaybird]

The tradition is Luke's Gospel was at the request of Paul and Mark under Peter.

so the eye witness accounts in Luke, according to tradition, would be from Peter?

 

[Jim Parker]

so the eye witness accounts in Luke, according to tradition, would be from Peter?

Luke doesn't claim to be an eye witness.
Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

 

[jaybird]

Luke doesn't claim to be an eye witness.
Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Luke wasnt , but i was asking if the accounts in Luke are from Peter?

 

[Pegasus]

so the eye witness accounts in Luke, according to tradition, would be from Peter?

The eyewitness accounts would be the actual sources.

To which Dr. Luke says:

Luke 1: KJV

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

[Pegasus]

Luke doesn't claim to be an eye witness.
Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Which given the detailed accounts of Luke 1&2 Luke had direct access to Blessed Mary mother of our Lord.

 

[Jim Parker]

Luke wasnt , but i was asking if the accounts in Luke are from Peter?

I don't know. Luke hung out with Paul. I don't know what his relationship with Peter was.

 

[Jim Parker]

Which given the detailed accounts of Luke 1&2 Luke had direct access to Blessed Mary mother of our Lord.

He could have gotten those detailed accounts from others.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm drawing off from memory so...

There were somewhere around 100 different tests that any writings had to pass in order to become scripture... Even if the writer was known to be an accurate prophet of God. (Daniel was thought to be hasty when recognizing Jeremiah's writings.)

Some of Paul's "lost letters" didn't make the cut. (Translated copies existing today)

When reading this extra-biblical stuff it becomes obvious. It isn't worthy to be scripture. Even though reading Paul's "lost letters" almost make it to be scripture... It becomes obvious that these writings would be easily misinterpreted to become license for evil. No new information can be had from them.

So when determining what to put together to form a Bible the weight of future generations of God's servants and Saints is upon the determining body. That, and a most deliberate healthy fear of the Lord comes into play.
Everyone chose very carefully what and why we have the Bible we have today. There's no conspiracy for evil. Even Tyndale got drawn and quartered and forty years after his death got his bones burned for simply translating the Bible into the English language. Mostly because the English language is a poor receptor language when translating.

The Apocrypha was removed because where it's level of importance is high it still wasn't scripture nor did it have the authenticity that the others had. It's side information that goes to help explain scripture...But isn't scripture. Popular Talmud tales are a fun read...They were designed that way. I have a book of them. But they aren't scripture. They contain life wisdom...But are not going to lead anyone to a more holy lifestyle.
Finally, we can't seem to get people to accurately read and follow the Bible as it is...Adding more books and letters from ancient history won't help. It will only serve to become grist for the scam artists and wolves seeking to fleece the flock.