Apocrypha Books

[jaybird]

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

Pegasus mentioned Peter in this post, not sure if you saw it:

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

 

[Pegasus]

He could have gotten those detailed accounts from others.

Perhaps. However as a doctor he would no doubt want to "see the patient" to determine a "diagnosis."

 

[Pegasus]

Pegasus mentioned Peter in this post, not sure if you saw it:

Yes notice I should have said Mark's gospel under Peter. Two different gospel accounts two different apostles.

 

[Pegasus]

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.

I believe the OP references the 7 OT deutercanonical books as "apocrypha."

However the proper historical term is deutercanonical.

 

[By Grace]

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.

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)

The interesting difference between the Roman Catholic view of the NT Canon and the Protestant view is seen above. The same event, deciding which books should and should not be included is seen as a church-centric view for the Roman Catholics, or a Biblical standards view if you are not RC.

Like the mod, I learned the latter view. The deciding of which books were and were not Scripture were decided by using the Old Testament as a sort of "high jump bar" where if the standards were met, the book was New Testament canon, and if not, the books were excluded from canon.

Here is a quote from wikipedia that explains that "high jump bar"

Many modern Protestants point to four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the books that have been included in the Old and New Testament, which are judged to have satisfied the following:

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century).
3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

That last one, "consistency in message" is important; it is what differentiates itself from the church-centered declarations from the Roman position.

To understand the reasons behind the church-centric position it is important to understand that the 1546 Council of Trent cane as a result of the schisms and splits which created the Protest- ant church. On October 31, 1517, Luther penned his famous 95 thesis on the door of the Wittenberg, Cathedral as an academic discussion. In the 25 years (or so) that followed, the RC needed to make itself different from the rising tide of the Protestant Reformation, so in April of 1546, the Council of Trent came out with several distinctions which we now recognize as unique Roman Catholic doctrines. The interested posters can easily research that by doing a web search on that Council; I'll stick with the OP of the thread.

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.

Here, and in subsequent paragraphs of his snipped post, the mod is using the "Consistency in Message" high jump bar as one criterion for including this or that Scripture as NT Canon

So there are many reasons for the Bible being different in the Roman Catholic versions, and the Protestant versions. This is just a brief history, and the mentioning of the history of the RC Church should not be considered as an endorsement of them; I also know that it is prohibited to discuss the RCC. However, given the nature of the Apocrypha, and its history, it is impossible to not bring the church into the discussion.

Hopefully, I have avoided any infractions, or my post being altered or deleted.

 

[Pegasus]

The interesting difference between the Roman Catholic view of the NT Canon and the Protestant view is seen above. The same event, deciding which books should and should not be included is seen as a church-centric view for the Roman Catholics, or a Biblical standards view if you are not RC.

Like the mod, I learned the latter view. The deciding of which books were and were not Scripture were decided by using the Old Testament as a sort of "high jump bar" where if the standards were met, the book was New Testament canon, and if not, the books were excluded from canon.

Here is a quote from wikipedia that explains that "high jump bar"

Many modern Protestants point to four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the books that have been included in the Old and New Testament, which are judged to have satisfied the following:

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century).
3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

That last one, "consistency in message" is important; it is what differentiates itself from the church-centered declarations from the Roman position.

To understand the reasons behind the church-centric position it is important to understand that the 1546 Council of Trent cane as a result of the schisms and splits which created the Protest- ant church. On October 31, 1517, Luther penned his famous 95 thesis on the door of the Wittenberg, Cathedral as an academic discussion. In the 25 years (or so) that followed, the RC needed to make itself different from the rising tide of the Protestant Reformation, so in April of 1546, the Council of Trent came out with several distinctions which we now recognize as unique Roman Catholic doctrines. The interested posters can easily research that by doing a web search on that Council; I'll stick with the OP of the thread.


Here, and in subsequent paragraphs of his snipped post, the mod is using the "Consistency in Message" high jump bar as one criterion for including this or that Scripture as NT Canon

So there are many reasons for the Bible being different in the Roman Catholic versions, and the Protestant versions. This is just a brief history, and the mentioning of the history of the RC Church should not be considered as an endorsement of them; I also know that it is prohibited to discuss the RCC. However, given the nature of the Apocrypha, and its history, it is impossible to not bring the church into the discussion.

Hopefully, I have avoided any infractions, or my post being altered or deleted.

Good post.

Yes it is most difficult to not discuss the RC church when we discuss church history and especially the origins of the Reformation. Think you are doing just fine in that regard.

 

[JohnDB]

Here, and in subsequent paragraphs of his snipped post, the mod is using the "Consistency in Message" high jump bar as one criterion for including this or that Scripture as NT Canon

It isn't so much as consistency of message as it is the ability to twist Paul's words into something other than what he intended. The letters that we use as cannon are more concise and clearer than the letters that we don't use. The message is the same in all his letters.
More of Paul's character and personality comes through in the other letters not so well known. But that's not the point or intention of scripture. The lost letters have fewer theological points in them and are stated almost identically to the letters that are cannon. That's the main reason why they were left out. Paper and ink have been very expensive for centuries. When choosing what to keep in an expensive Bible you have to go for the biggest bang for your dollar.

 

[By Grace]

It isn't so much as consistency of message as it is the ability to twist Paul's words into something other than what he intended. The letters that we use as cannon are more concise and clearer than the letters that we don't use. The message is the same in all his letters.

More of Paul's character and personality comes through in the other letters not so well known.

The standards for the canon are higher than that of subjective personality conformity, or writing style. For example the letters of peter are almost "stream-of-conscious type of writing than that of Paul, who writes with precise detail, and interweaving of motifs and metaphors. That style of writing is not seen in Hebrews because the book takes the intricacies of the Temple and Temple historty, and applies that to Jesus. Most different from those are the writings of the Apostle John

That is why there is a "high jump approach" to determine the canon of the NT. But in the Wiki snip, the authors left out one important component to the "consistent message" criteria. That is non contradiction to the Old Testament.

There are apocryphal stories of when Jesus was a child, making birds out of mud pies, and letting them fly away. Such a story is not consistent with the God of ALL creation in Genesis, but in Hebrews 1, that author's description is entirely consistent with the God of ALL creation.

That is why i made reference to the other criteria:

• Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

• Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century).

• Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

• Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

But that's not the point or intention of scripture. The lost letters have fewer theological points in them and are stated almost identically to the letters that are cannon.

No. Those "lost letters" were "lost" because they did not meet the criteria to be raised to the level of canon, and justifiably, they were discarded.

 

[JohnDB]

The standards for the canon are higher than that of subjective personality conformity, or writing style. For example the letters of peter are almost "stream-of-conscious type of writing than that of Paul, who writes with precise detail, and interweaving of motifs and metaphors. That style of writing is not seen in Hebrews because the book takes the intricacies of the Temple and Temple historty, and applies that to Jesus. Most different from those are the writings of the Apostle John

That is why there is a "high jump approach" to determine the canon of the NT. But in the Wiki snip, the authors left out one important component to the "consistent message" criteria. That is non contradiction to the Old Testament.

There are apocryphal stories of when Jesus was a child, making birds out of mud pies, and letting them fly away. Such a story is not consistent with the God of ALL creation in Genesis, but in Hebrews 1, that author's description is entirely consistent with the God of ALL creation.

That is why i made reference to the other criteria:

• Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

• Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century).

• Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

• Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

No. Those "lost letters" were "lost" because they did not meet the criteria to be raised to the level of canon, and justifiably, they were discarded.

I'm not sure about all that you proposing. What I am saying is what I know from actually reading the letters.

 

[By Grace]

I'm not sure about all that you proposing. What I am saying is what I know from actually reading the letters.

John

I regret that I was not sufficiently clear. The difference I am noting is the difference between the terms "subjective" and "objective"

Things that are subjective are valid only to one person: the person making the observation.
Things that are objective are universally valid because they meet certain criteria.

Here is an example from professional football.

1. I like the Philadelphia Eagles because I grew up in the south eastern part of Pennsylvania
2. Tom Brady is the world's best quarterback, ever.

Example 1 is my opinion because there are other fans who like the Steelers, or Buffalo Bills for their own reasons
Example 2 is objective because I can cite that he won 5 Super Bowl championships, his number of passing touchdowns, and other stats.

In example 2, I have established a criteria to use the term, "great" when it comes to NFL quarterbacks. Henceforth, all NFL quarterbacks must rise to the level of the achievements of Tom Brady to warrant being called "great".

BACK TO THE SUBJECT
The following statements you posted are subjective:

1. It isn't so much as consistency of message as it is the ability to twist Paul's words into something other than what he intended.
2. More of Paul's character and personality comes through in the other letters not so well known.

There is no way that any person can quantify "the ability to twist Paul's words..." nor is there any way to measure "Paul's character and personality" in something. Can you say "the character of Paul is revealed more in Philemon than it is in Galatians"? Of course not! We know that Paul did indeed write those Epistles, but to measure and quantify his "personality in each" is arbitrary, meaning that there is no objective standard of measurement of the degree of personality revealed.

But if we go back to those standards

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century).
3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message— containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings

we can make a determination of "YES" or "NO" and have universal agreement. That is because the standards are objective, not subjective.

Have I made my position sufficiently clear? Your agreement or disagreement with what I posted is somewhat irrelevant (at this point) if I have not made myself understandable.

 

[francisdesales]

I believe the OP references the 7 OT deutercanonical books as "apocrypha."

However the proper historical term is deutercanonical.

You are absolutely correct. Apocrypha is falsely attributed to the book of Wisdom. However, I believe if one actually reads it, one would find there are some very eerie connections in it to what Christians would later believe (an incredible description of the suffering servant and the pre-existing Word of God, for example.)

 

[Pegasus]

You are absolutely correct. Apocrypha is falsely attributed to the book of Wisdom. However, I believe if one actually reads it, one would find there are some very eerie connections in it to what Christians would later believe (an incredible description of the suffering servant and the pre-existing Word of God, for example.)

Yes my Eastern Orthodox friends are quite fond of Wisdom and I know of the Messianic passages you note.

I will have to revisit and get back to you. My initial assessment years ago was Wisdom (whoever the author is) was expounding on prophecies of Isaiah and others. Meaning good teaching and exegesis of what already existed. Ben Sira is in the same category but of the Law.

 

[francisdesales]

Yes my Eastern Orthodox friends are quite fond of Wisdom and I know of the Messianic passages you note.

I will have to revisit and get back to you. My initial assessment years ago was Wisdom (whoever the author is) was expounding on prophecies of Isaiah and others. Meaning good teaching and exegesis of what already existed. Ben Sira is in the same category but of the Law.

Wisdom was expounding on Isaiah? And what was Isaiah expounding on when we read about the Suffering Servant? If you discard one, you will need to discard the other, as Christians do not see an "either/or" when reading about the Suffering Servant - Jesus/Israel

Why does it matter whether something has been "expounded before" on determining whether something is inspired by God or not? Shall we get rid of the Gospels because it cites words and concepts from the OT??? Scripture is filled with the repeating of teachings. It does seem odd that one would use THAT as a determinant of what is part of Sacred Writ.

Again, there is no "rule of thumb" that someone can come up with that can give us the canon. It's all "Monday morning QB". The very notion of "consistent message" depends upon a Church to state what the message IS before one can consistently hear it.

 

[Pegasus]

Wisdom was expounding on Isaiah? And what was Isaiah expounding on when we read about the Suffering Servant? If you discard one, you will need to discard the other, as Christians do not see an "either/or" when reading about the Suffering Servant - Jesus/Israel

Why does it matter whether something has been "expounded before" on determining whether something is inspired by God or not? Shall we get rid of the Gospels because it cites words and concepts from the OT??? Scripture is filled with the repeating of teachings. It does seem odd that one would use THAT as a determinant of what is part of Sacred Writ.

Again, there is no "rule of thumb" that someone can come up with that can give us the canon. It's all "Monday morning QB". The very notion of "consistent message" depends upon a Church to state what the message IS before one can consistently hear it.

I believe my point may not have been clear. In Isaiah we have "thus saith the Lord" where in Wisdom and Ben Sira we don't.

I consider the deuterocanonical books as edifying for those growing in the faith, as did the greater minds of the church fathers/doctors. There are great gems within the works of John Chrysostom's homilies, however, in themselves not Holy Scriptures and he would no doubt agree. Such is my impression of reading Wisdom and Ben Sira. Good commentary on the Law and Prophets but not issuing new law or new prophecies. Both lack the prophet's voice, although one can find concepts and sayings from such.

 

[Jim Parker]

Perhaps. However as a doctor he would no doubt want to "see the patient" to determine a "diagnosis."

And that absence of a doubt has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
There is nothing in scripture to suggest that Luke was an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry. (As far as I have noted, maybe I missed something.)
What He said is:
Luk 1:1-4 (RSV) Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
At the opening of his gospel he states that the information was not first hand; it was "delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word."

From that we may safely conclude that Luke was NOT an eye witness.

He is more of an historian and journalist.


iakov the fool

 

[Pegasus]

And that absence of a doubt has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
There is nothing in scripture to suggest that Luke was an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry. (As far as I have noted, maybe I missed something.)
What He said is:
Luk 1:1-4 (RSV) Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
At the opening of his gospel he states that the information was not first hand; it was "delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word."

From that we may safely conclude that Luke was NOT an eye witness.

He is more of an historian and journalist.


iakov the fool

I don't remember saying Luke was an eyewitness, but that he interviewed eyewitnesses.

It was an orderly account.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't remember saying Luke was an eyewitness, but that he interviewed eyewitnesses.

It was an orderly account.

OK
That's what i see

 

[By Grace]

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God
both ESV

Unless we fail to remember that the above prologues demonstrate that Luke was a classically-trained physician, also trained to observe details such a physician would do, it is somewhat easy to dismiss him as "ordinary". He was not ordinary.

Until Paul came on the scene, Luke was the most educated among the Disciples

 

[Jim Parker]

The interesting difference between the Roman Catholic view of the NT Canon and the Protestant view is seen above. The same event, deciding which books should and should not be included is seen as a church-centric view for the Roman Catholics, or a Biblical standards view if you are not RC.

The NT canon was set before there was a RC church.
The tests included being of apostolic origin and conforming to the teaching of the Church. (So no Gnosticism, no Neo-Platonism, etc.)
The idea of Biblical Standards did not arise until very recently and, in part, in order to support the expulsion of the deuterocanonical books from the Bible. It seems to me a rather flimsy excuse and an obviously doctrine driven device to remove any support for anything that might seem "too KAAATH-lick."

iakov the fool

 

[By Grace]

he NT canon was set before there was a RC church.

Correct

The tests included being of apostolic origin and conforming to the teaching of the Church. (So no Gnosticism, no Neo-Platonism, etc.)

Correct

The idea of Biblical Standards did not arise until very recently and, in part, in order to support the expulsion of the deuterocanonical books from the Bible.

From Philip Schaff
HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
CHAPTER IX.
THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECUMENICAL ORTHODOXY.

In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the disputed Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as deutero-canonical books, bearing a subordinate authority. The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the reading of other books in the churches, excepting the Acts of the Martyrs on their memorial days.
.​

This gave the Old Testament Canon 44 books
.

Protestantism retained the New Testament canon of the Roman church, but, in accordance with the orthodox Jewish and the primitive Christian view, excluded the Apocrypha from the Old.​

.

The most eminent of the church fathers speak in the strongest terms of the full inspiration and the infallible authority of the holy Scriptures, and commend the diligent reading of them even to the laity. Especially Chrysostom. The want of general education, however, and the enormous cost of books, left the people for the most part dependent on the mere hearing of the word of God in public worship; and the free private study of the Bible was repressed by the prevailing Spirit of the hierarchy. No prohibition, indeed, was yet laid upon the reading of the Bible; but the presumption that it was a book of the priests and monks already existed. It remained for a much later period, by the invention of printing, the free spirit of Protestantism, and the introduction of popular schools, to make the Bible properly a people’s book, as it was originally designed to be; and to disseminate it by Bible societies, which now print and circulate more copies of it in one year, than were made in the whole middle age, or even in the fifteen centuries before the Reformation.
(Ibid)​

Sorry, but Schaff does not agree with your assertion
.

It seems to me a rather flimsy excuse and an obviously doctrine driven device to remove any support for anything that might seem "too KAAATH-lick."

Call it as you will, Jim. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However, since this is the Apologetics section, and in the spirit friendly discussion (as opposed to debate) I invite you to provide evidence for your claim.

The aim is not "win-lose" but rather "win-win" where we can both learn something new, and we demonstrate through our posts that discussions do not need to be disagreeable, nor against the tos.