Apocrypha Books

[Jim Parker]

Sorry, but Schaff does not agree with your assertion

Which assertion?

Call it as you will, Jim. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

That's why I said, "It seems to me."

 

[By Grace]

By Grace said: ↑
Sorry, but Schaff does not agree with your assertion

Which 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."

That is why I cut and pasted the quotes from Schaff

That's why I said, "It seems to me."

Opinions are like holes in our heads. Everybody has a few of them! :-P
No biggie if you wish to discontinue.
I was hoping to learn something from you, if you could provide more information than I already have.

 

[Jim Parker]

That is why I cut and pasted the quotes from Schaff

(Re: being too Catholic)
The decision to remove the "Catholic" deuterocanonical books from the KJV (1825 ) by the British Bible Society roughly coincides with the generation of the great influx of Catholic Irish (1847) and Catholic Italian immigrants (1880s) to the USA. They were poor, despised and discriminated against and became the American stereotype of a Catholic. (My mother, born in 1907, remembers as a young woman seeing want ads in the New Your Times which included the comment, "No Irish need apply.")

I don't think there is a direct cause and effect relationship but, considering the coincidence of dates, I do think the rapid increase of Irish and Italian Catholics was an influence.

Understand the removal was not instantaneous and universal, in that, the deuterocanonical books did not instantly disappear from Bibles printed in the USA because the British decided to not include them in British Bibles printed after 1825.

Another important date is 1881. (The deuterocanonical books were) part of every Jew’s Bible, but it was also a part of every Christian’s Bible all the way up to 1881. In 1881, due to the influence of wildly liberal textual critics, Westcott and Hort, the Apocrypha was removed from non- Catholic Bibles. The Catholics ignored Westcott and Hort, but the Protestants and the Anglicans fell into line, and when the influence of the popular textual critics said, “Well, this should not be in the Bible,” amazingly, everybody just fell like dominoes. And starting in 1881, Bibles that are Protestant or Anglican don’t have the Apocrypha.
http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-books-apocrypha-removed-from-the-bible-in-1881/

The influence of fundamentalism (not the popular Hollywood kind) in response to the rise of highly "liberal" interpretations by Biblical scholars attempting to apply a "scientific" approach to the study of scripture is an important influence as well.

But, the early church apparently had no problem with the deuterocanonical books.
https://earlychurchfathers.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/the-deutero-canonical-books-of-the-bible/

iakov the fool

 

[JohnDB]

(Re: being too Catholic)
The decision to remove the "Catholic" deuterocanonical books from the KJV (1825 ) by the British Bible Society roughly coincides with the generation of the great influx of Catholic Irish (1847) and Catholic Italian immigrants (1880s) to the USA. They were poor, despised and discriminated against and became the American stereotype of a Catholic. (My mother, born in 1907, remembers as a young woman seeing want ads in the New Your Times which included the comment, "No Irish need apply.")

I don't think there is a direct cause and effect relationship but, considering the coincidence of dates, I do think the rapid increase of Irish and Italian Catholics was an influence.

Understand the removal was not instantaneous and universal, in that, the deuterocanonical books did not instantly disappear from Bibles printed in the USA because the British decided to not include them in British Bibles printed after 1825.

Another important date is 1881. (The deuterocanonical books were) part of every Jew’s Bible, but it was also a part of every Christian’s Bible all the way up to 1881. In 1881, due to the influence of wildly liberal textual critics, Westcott and Hort, the Apocrypha was removed from non- Catholic Bibles. The Catholics ignored Westcott and Hort, but the Protestants and the Anglicans fell into line, and when the influence of the popular textual critics said, “Well, this should not be in the Bible,” amazingly, everybody just fell like dominoes. And starting in 1881, Bibles that are Protestant or Anglican don’t have the Apocrypha.
http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-books-apocrypha-removed-from-the-bible-in-1881/

The influence of fundamentalism (not the popular Hollywood kind) in response to the rise of highly "liberal" interpretations by Biblical scholars attempting to apply a "scientific" approach to the study of scripture is an important influence as well.

But, the early church apparently had no problem with the deuterocanonical books.
https://earlychurchfathers.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/the-deutero-canonical-books-of-the-bible/

iakov the fool

Wescott was actually the expert on Jewish writings in the Ancient Near East. Hort also was a highly educated man but had more of the political clout and financing needed to advance Wescott's knowledge of the ancient manuscripts. To this day Wescott's knowledge of the writings that the book of Hebrews draws upon is the basis of all commentaries on this letter. They weren't exactly liberal but were not aligned with the current understanding of scriptures as told by the Catholic Church of that day.

I'm drawing a blank at the moment but can't remember if the Geneva Bible contained the books or not or if it was the second great migration to America that the Bibles the Protestants carried were without the Apocrypha.

 

[By Grace]

Hello Jim,

Do you realize that you are merely quoting from blogs?
Do you understand that they are people who are spewing opinion, not scholarship? Even Wikipedia requires that the contributors cite everything they state so that others can go to their sources, and verify that those are accurate quotes and facts. None of your cut and paste material, nor the referenced websites contain foot notes. To avoid links problems (as there are on other forums) I deleted the links.

Please compare the details of Schaff with what those websites opine about.

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.

Nothing except 1881 is cited in those sites, and that makes it suspicious.

 

[Jim Parker]

Do you understand that they are people who are spewing opinion, not scholarship?

Ah. Like your opinions and lack of scholarship? Tell me, Mr. Kettle, is that pot black?

FROM YOUR SCHAFF QUOTATION: "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"

That says that the Apocrypha (Deutero canonical books) of the LXX were included in the canon of scripture from the late 4th century.


iakov the fool

 

[By Grace]

Ah. Like your opinions and lack of scholarship?
FROM YOUR SCHAFF QUOTATION: "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"

That says that the Apocrypha (Deutero canonical books) of the LXX were included in the canon of scripture from the late 4th century.

iakov the fool

If you are going to quote another poster, it is best to quote something in its entirety, and not snip something that may give a false impression:

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.
​

For one reason or another, you neglected to understand that I was replying to this, your statement directly below:

Jim Parker said: ↑
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.

The phrase containing the words, "subordinate" and "in some places" were left out of your quote, but that is besides the point.

Your original statement was that "The idea of Biblical Standards did not arise until very recently " and that quote demonstrated your error to which I replied

 

[OzSpen]

Wescott was actually the expert on Jewish writings in the Ancient Near East. Hort also was a highly educated man but had more of the political clout and financing needed to advance Wescott's knowledge of the ancient manuscripts. To this day Wescott's knowledge of the writings that the book of Hebrews draws upon is the basis of all commentaries on this letter. They weren't exactly liberal but were not aligned with the current understanding of scriptures as told by the Catholic Church of that day.

I'm drawing a blank at the moment but can't remember if the Geneva Bible contained the books or not or if it was the second great migration to America that the Bibles the Protestants carried were without the Apocrypha.

John,

This article affirms that the Geneva Bible contained the Deuterocanonical Books: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2863516/posts.

The Puritans didn't use the KJV (they were dissenters) but used the Geneva Bible that included the Apocrypha.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Your original statement was that "The idea of Biblical Standards did not arise until very recently " and that quote demonstrated your error to which I replied

Please list the "Biblical Standards" and their origins by which you would reject deuterocannonical books.

From the practice of the early church (East and West) deuterocannonical books were included in the Bible and read in the liturgy on Sundays as well as quoted in the documents of the early church.
See: http://www.earlychristiandictionary.com/Deuterocanonical.html

Apparently, they considered them to have met their "Biblical Standards."

iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[By Grace]

Please list the "Biblical Standards" and their origins by which you would reject deuterocannonical books.

Here are two quotes I posted
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.



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.

 

[Jim Parker]

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

The deuterocannonical books meet 2 through 4 and predate the apostles.

iakov the fool

 

[By Grace]

The deuterocannonical books meet 2 through 4 and predate the apostles.

iakov the fool

The Schaff quote demonstrated that number 2 is not fulfilled. they were only partly accepted and by segments of Judaism. Therefore they cannot be canon.

 

[Jim Parker]

The Schaff quote demonstrated that number 2 is not fulfilled. they were only partly accepted and by segments of Judaism. Therefore they cannot be canon.

We're not talking about what the Jews accepted, but what the Christian Church accepted.
The Deuterocanonical books were UNIVERSALLY accepted BY THE CHURCH for over 1500 years.
And, if you want to argue that not all of the early church accepted the deuterocanonical books and for that reason they should be excluded from the canon of scripture, then you need to be consistent and remove the Book of Revelation which was not accepted by many of the early Church as qualifying to be included in the canon of scripture.

iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[By Grace]

You seem to be arguing against the facts, or else have an incorrect remembrance of what Schaff actually stated.

Here it is again, and please look at the highlighted words carefully:

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.​

If you recall, your reply to me on that quote from Schaff was truncated

 

[Jim Parker]

You seem to be arguing against the facts,

Th whom was this post addressed???

 

[By Grace]

Th whom was this post addressed???

You, of course.
I quoted you.

 

[Jim Parker]

You, of course.
I quoted you.

All it said was "You seem to be arguing against the facts,"
That's not quoting me.

 

[By Grace]

All it said was "You seem to be arguing against the facts,"
That's not quoting me.

Please go back to this post http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/apocrypha-books.68498/page-4#post-1305424

You will see that I made three quotes of yours which were placed on the top. Then after I made that statement, I quoted you again

I also made an important statement as we discuss this issue

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.

What I was attempting to demonstrate that you missed (reason is not the issue) the words I made blue in your comment.

 

[Jim Parker]

Please go back to this post http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/apocrypha-books.68498/page-4#post-1305424
You will see that I made three quotes of yours which were placed on the top. Then after I made that statement, I quoted you again
I also made an important statement as we discuss this issue
What I was attempting to demonstrate that you missed (reason is not the issue) the words I made blue in your comment.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
OK
That helps.
Now I know who posted it and what you were talking about.

What I have found is that the early church quoted from the deuterocanonical books in their apologetic and in their letters to churches. By the fact of their quoting those sources, I conclude that they considered them to be profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. (2 Tim 3:16)

It is my opinion that their use for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness says more about their value than does arguments about what was considered canon when and by whom.

The removal from Protestant Bibles was unnecessary and a detriment to the church by removing valuable instruction and historical information which is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

If you don't want to read them then don't. I don't spend very much time in Revelations because it's apocalyptic and, with the exception of clear, non-apocalyptic segments, not particularly profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

I still think one of the main reasons for their removal by Protestants is that they are "too KATH-lick." (Just as the Sadducees rejected any books outside of the Book of Moses as authoritative because they spoke of the resurrection and a new covenant to replace the old, so Protestants removed the deuterocanonical books that spoke of prayer for the dead. [in 2nd Maccabees.])

You have offered nothing to suggest that I should change my position.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Jim Parker]

Please go back to this post http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/apocrypha-books.68498/page-4#post-1305424
You will see that I made three quotes of yours which were placed on the top. Then after I made that statement, I quoted you again
I also made an important statement as we discuss this issue
What I was attempting to demonstrate that you missed (reason is not the issue) the words I made blue in your comment.

And, for your edification; here are a few early church fathers' use of the deuterocanonical texts.

Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians, 27:5(c A.D. 80) "Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. 'Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? or, Who shall resist the power of His strength?'[Wisdom 12:12,ll:22] When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away? All thingsare open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His counsel. 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. And there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not heard.'[Ps. 19:1-3]"

Polycarp, To the Phillipians,10 (A.D. 135) "Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death.'[Tobit 4:10,12:9] Be all of you subject one to another?[1 Pt 5:5] having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,'[1 Pt 2:12] that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed![Isa 52:5] Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct.

Didache,4:3-5(A.D. 140) " 'Be just in your judgement':[Deut 1:16,17 Prov 31:9] make no distinction between man and man when correcting transgressions. Do not waver in your decision. 'Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving'[Sirach 4:31]"

Epistle of Barnabas,6 (A.D. 74) "What, then, again says the prophet? 'The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,'[Ps. 22:17,118:12] and 'upon my garment they cast lots.'[Ps. 22:19] Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves,[Isa. 3:9] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us.'[Wisdom 2:12] And Moses also says to them, 'Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware [to give] to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey.'[Ex. 33:1, Lev. 20:24]"

Tertullian,On the Soul,15(A.D. 197) "For, when one reads of God as being 'the searcher and witness of the heart;'[Wisdom 1:6] when His prophet is reproved by His discovering to him the secrets of the heart; when God Himself anticipates in His people the thoughts of their heart, 'Why think ye evil in your hearts?'[Matt 9:4] when David prays 'Create in me a clean heart, O God,'[Ps 51:12] and Paul declares, 'With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,'[Romans 10:10] and John says, 'By his own heart is each man condemned;'[1 John 3:20] when, lastly, 'he who looketh on a woman so as to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart,'[Matt 5:28]--then both points are cleared fully up, that there is a directing faculty of the soul..."

Tertullian,Prescription Against the Heretics,7(A.D. 200) "Our instruction comes from 'the porch of Solomon,' who had himself taught that 'the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.'[Wisdom 1:1]"

Clement of Alexandria,The Instructor,I:8(A.D. 202) "At this stage some rise up, saying that the Lord, by reason of the rod, and threatening, and fear, is not good; misapprehending, as appears, the Scripture which says, 'And he that feareth the Lord will turn to his heart;'[Sirach 21:6] and most of all, oblivious of His love, in that for us He became man. For more suitably to Him, the prophet prays in these words: 'Remember us, for we are dust;'[Ps 103:14] that: is, Sympathize with us; for Thou knowest from personal experience of suffering the weakness of the flesh. In this respect, therefore, the Lord the Instructor is most good and unimpeachable, sympathizing as He does from the exceeding greatness of His love with the nature of each man. 'For there is nothing which the Lord hates.'[Wisdom 11:24] For assuredly He does not hate anything, and yet wish that which He hates to exist Nor does He wish anything not to exist, and yet become the cause of existence to that which He wishes not to exist. Nor does He wish anything not to exist which yet exists. If, then, the Word hates anything, He does not wish it to exist. But nothing exists, the cause of whose existence is not supplied by God. Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one--that is, God. For He has said, 'In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God.'[John 1:1]"