The apocryphal books

[Aharon]

Dozens of uncanonical books called "apocryphal books" (literally, "hidden books") exist that were never decisively put into the Bible (this being said because some do consider them as a part of the Scriptures). However, just because they are not accepted worldwide as books of the Bible does not mean that they do not contain certain truths, though I will admit that there are probably several books with questionable content.

The more commonly known apocryphal books include 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, and Ecclesiasticus. Others include the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, and the Gospel of Peter, among many others, many of which are not whole.

I have grown increasingly interested in studying these books. What parts of them are true? What parts of them are false? I will probably never know, but it is interesting to think about.

~Aharon--

 

[Khristeeanos]

I like the Shepherd of Hermas alot.

 

[thessalonian]

In truth, from around 384 until 1515 or so Judith, 1& 2 Macabees, Ecclesiasties, Baruch, Wisdom, and Tobit were generally accepted throughout the Christian world. They are today in Catholic and Orthdox faiths but the "reformers" took it upon themselves to remove them. By what authority I might ask? :o

 

[AVBunyan]

By what authority I might ask? :o

By what authrity do you say those books should be there? :-?

 

[thessalonian]

By what authority I might ask? :o

By what authrity do you say those books should be there? :-?

By the authority of Christ's Church, through the councils and popes who correctly identified the 27 books of the New Testament (of which Martin Luther wanted to do away with a few) obviously by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit (they had some 200 books to sort through and still got it rigth). There is no reason to believe they got the OT books wrong or that there was any less guidance in getting that list correct.

 

[JM]

http://www.souldevice.org/rcscripture2.html

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day,

I have also wondered how Bad this book was before Jerome Hacked the garbage out.

THE PREFACE OF JEROME ON THE BOOK OF JUDITH

Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work , translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

Your article is littered with errors JM.

The New Testament refers to events contained in these books. There is not a single quotation from the Apocrypha in the New Testament.

This is a decietful arguement. On the surface it sounds good. But quoting is proof of nothing. Should we include the writings of the pagan sages because Paul quoted them. There are other books of the Old Testament such as ecclesisasties that are not quoted. Shall we throw them out.

Some of the early church fathers quoted from these writings, and some even accepted them as inspired. This argument cuts both ways, as some did not. More notable is the list of those who DID NOT quote from the apocryphal writings... Jesus, and every apostle!

Is the reason for saying this that Jesus and the Apostles did not quote them. That as demonstrated above is a bogus arguement. But the fact is that there are over 300 references to the Greek Septuigant Bible in the NT. Quotes that show that Jesus and his apostles used this version of the scriptures. There is no reason to believe that they were unaware of and completely rejected these books.

Early Greek manuscripts have been found that contain the Apocrypha, along with the Septuagint. While this argument may at first sound compelling, the larger picture provides a clearer picture... First, none of these books were included in the Hebrew Scriptures. Second, no Greek manuscript has a matching list of apocryphal books to that of the Roman Catholic Church list.

From one of the articles linked at the bottom.
"7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated. "

Another rather bogus arguement. There was no fixed canon at the time of Jesus. It can be shown that Jesus and his apostles new of and used the Septuigant. As to if they held it all as scripture that is certainly open for debate. But the Christian canon was not fixed until the end of the fouth century. The councils that fixed the new testament canon choose it from among the many books available and the Protestants except that canon. Yet somehow they thing the Holy Spirit made a mistake in guiding them to the Old Testament canon they decided on.

Third, not a single manuscript contains all of the apocryphal books. Fourth, only four books are found in all of them.

So what. Some of the listings of the New Testament canon by some of the Church fathers did not have the book of Revelation and other books in them. My guess is that they had a pack of scrolls as there bible and it was missing the book of revelations. Likely some of the scrolls upon which the early manuscriptures you are talking about (which are copies of copies of scrolls) were missing certain books because the scrolls for those books were missing. Once again it's a red herring arguement. Did the Church get it right with 27 books and make a mistake with the Old Testament? I doudt it.

Fifth, if they existed at the time of Christ, why did He not refer to them as inspired or quote from them?

This guy likes this arguement and repeats it. It is bogus.

Other, earlier, church councils accepted the Apocrypha. Only the councils not universally recognized by the Church (which includes the three major branches) accepted the apocrypha.

Hippo and Carthage in the late fourth century ratified the canon that Pope Damasus declared in 384. That's good enough for me. It did correctly include all 27 books of the New Testament I might add. If it had not been decided then how come EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF THE VULGATE TRANSLATED BY JEROME contained the Apocrypha?

Also, the New Testament Church has no say in what is contained in the Old Testament Scriptures! The issue was already decided by then!

Decided by who, when? Show me evidence of a fixed canon before 90 AD at the supposed council of Jamnia. Tell me, did those Jews have the Holy Spirit at that council?

Even some Protestant Bibles (from the 19th century) contain the extra books. These were not at issue during the reformation. Even before that event, however, the apocrypha was considered a separate addition to the inspired canon and was not given equal status with the actual Bible by either side.

The funny thing here is that you have no Protestant history before 1515 to draw upon.

Some of the apocryphal books were found with the Old Testament writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If this criterion were used for other writings found in Qumran, we would have a large Bible indeed!

I don't know of anyone claiming this as criteria for including them.

In actuality, the Dead Sea Scrolls are an entire library of books. More telling is the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures were set apart in special parchments that EXCLUDED the apocrypha, and although commentaries existed for the Old Testament, none were found for any book of the apocrypha.

\

If they were Palestinian Jews it is not surprizing that they did not include th eapocrypha. Alexandrian Jews did.

They were infallibly pronounced as Scripture at the council of Trent. This is, of course, the heart of the issue. The long and the short of it is this: The Roman Catholic Church did not decide the canon (see below), nor are their pronouncements infallible (see article on infallibility).

This is a false claim. Damasus infallibly declared them and they were included in the vulgate at the end of the fouth century. The bogusness of this arguement is proven by the fact that Flourence infallibly declared them as well, a few hundred years before Trent. The author does not know his history. Trent is convenient for him because it is 20 years after the Protestants removed them from the canon.

Here are plenty of articles for you to sort through.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS3.HTM#CAN ... 0APOCRYPHA

 

[bbas 64]

In truth, from around 384 until 1515 or so Judith, 1& 2 Macabees, Ecclesiasties, Baruch, Wisdom, and Tobit were generally accepted throughout the Christian world. They are today in Catholic and Orthdox faiths but the "reformers" took it upon themselves to remove them. By what authority I might ask? :o

Good day, Thess

This is quite an over statement on your part...

Jerome on the Curches view of these books:

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon


Now I do understand that the RCC took upon them selfs at Trent to form for themselves their own 'canon", that was larger than the Jewish canon. More power to them, I think they were wrong in doing so one never know God may forgive them.

The reformers took them out LOL....

Luther's RCC Opponent Card. Cajetan notes:

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:


Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. 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 be thou 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 the words 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 for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the 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 Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.129


Thess would like to have us believe that this RCC Cajetan . is really a reformer ... :roll: Hardly
Peace to u,

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

Your article is littered with errors JM.

The New Testament refers to events contained in these books. There is not a single quotation from the Apocrypha in the New Testament.

This is a decietful arguement. On the surface it sounds good. But quoting is proof of nothing. Should we include the writings of the pagan sages because Paul quoted them. There are other books of the Old Testament such as ecclesisasties that are not quoted. Shall we throw them out.

[quote:a2d26]
Some of the early church fathers quoted from these writings, and some even accepted them as inspired. This argument cuts both ways, as some did not. More notable is the list of those who DID NOT quote from the apocryphal writings... Jesus, and every apostle!

Is the reason for saying this that Jesus and the Apostles did not quote them. That as demonstrated above is a bogus arguement. But the fact is that there are over 300 references to the Greek Septuigant Bible in the NT. Quotes that show that Jesus and his apostles used this version of the scriptures. There is no reason to believe that they were unaware of and completely rejected these books.

Early Greek manuscripts have been found that contain the Apocrypha, along with the Septuagint. While this argument may at first sound compelling, the larger picture provides a clearer picture... First, none of these books were included in the Hebrew Scriptures. Second, no Greek manuscript has a matching list of apocryphal books to that of the Roman Catholic Church list.

From one of the articles linked at the bottom.
"7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated. "

Another rather bogus arguement. There was no fixed canon at the time of Jesus. It can be shown that Jesus and his apostles new of and used the Septuigant. As to if they held it all as scripture that is certainly open for debate. But the Christian canon was not fixed until the end of the fouth century. The councils that fixed the new testament canon choose it from among the many books available and the Protestants except that canon. Yet somehow they thing the Holy Spirit made a mistake in guiding them to the Old Testament canon they decided on.

Third, not a single manuscript contains all of the apocryphal books. Fourth, only four books are found in all of them.

So what. Some of the listings of the New Testament canon by some of the Church fathers did not have the book of Revelation and other books in them. My guess is that they had a pack of scrolls as there bible and it was missing the book of revelations. Likely some of the scrolls upon which the early manuscriptures you are talking about (which are copies of copies of scrolls) were missing certain books because the scrolls for those books were missing. Once again it's a red herring arguement. Did the Church get it right with 27 books and make a mistake with the Old Testament? I doudt it.

Fifth, if they existed at the time of Christ, why did He not refer to them as inspired or quote from them?

This guy likes this arguement and repeats it. It is bogus.

Other, earlier, church councils accepted the Apocrypha. Only the councils not universally recognized by the Church (which includes the three major branches) accepted the apocrypha.

Hippo and Carthage in the late fourth century ratified the canon that Pope Damasus declared in 384. That's good enough for me. It did correctly include all 27 books of the New Testament I might add. If it had not been decided then how come EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF THE VULGATE TRANSLATED BY JEROME contained the Apocrypha?

Also, the New Testament Church has no say in what is contained in the Old Testament Scriptures! The issue was already decided by then!

Decided by who, when? Show me evidence of a fixed canon before 90 AD at the supposed council of Jamnia. Tell me, did those Jews have the Holy Spirit at that council?

Even some Protestant Bibles (from the 19th century) contain the extra books. These were not at issue during the reformation. Even before that event, however, the apocrypha was considered a separate addition to the inspired canon and was not given equal status with the actual Bible by either side.

The funny thing here is that you have no Protestant history before 1515 to draw upon.

Some of the apocryphal books were found with the Old Testament writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If this criterion were used for other writings found in Qumran, we would have a large Bible indeed!

I don't know of anyone claiming this as criteria for including them.

In actuality, the Dead Sea Scrolls are an entire library of books. More telling is the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures were set apart in special parchments that EXCLUDED the apocrypha, and although commentaries existed for the Old Testament, none were found for any book of the apocrypha.

\

If they were Palestinian Jews it is not surprizing that they did not include th eapocrypha. Alexandrian Jews did.

They were infallibly pronounced as Scripture at the council of Trent. This is, of course, the heart of the issue. The long and the short of it is this: The Roman Catholic Church did not decide the canon (see below), nor are their pronouncements infallible (see article on infallibility).

[/quote:a2d26]

This is a false claim. Damasus infallibly declared them and they were included in the vulgate at the end of the fouth century. The bogusness of this arguement is proven by the fact that Flourence infallibly declared them as well, a few hundred years before Trent. The author does not know his history. Trent is convenient for him because it is 20 years after the Protestants removed them from the canon.

Here are plenty of articles for you to sort through.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS3.HTM#CAN ... 0APOCRYPHA

We can certainly go round in circles all day on this issue but it is simple fact that the refomeres decided they had the authority to take out what had been a part of the scriptures for 1600 years.

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day, Thess

"We can certainly go round in circles all day on this issue but it is simple fact that the refomeres decided they had the authority to take out what had been a part of the scriptures for 1600 years."

Can you say assertion... Lacking historical substance..

RCC admits...

Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.

Thess said it was generally accepted, then says "part of Scriptures for 1600 years"

One can not explain away the Doubts and uncertainties around this issue for those whol held to the RCC faith up until Trent.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[AVBunyan]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

 

[thessalonian]

Can you say assertion... Lacking historical substance..

Can you say handwaving lacking historical substance. Show me a Latin Vulgate without them? That was the version of the Bible used by the vast majority of the Christian world for 1200 years or more. Sure, people are always questioning truth. There is always dissent. So what.

 

[thessalonian]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

You don't see any benefit in Maccabees chapter 7 and the matyrdom of a mother and her 7 Hebrew sons? Common AV! The Apostle Paul in fact alludes to this in Heb 11:35.

 

[JM]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

Very true and I never thought of that.

 

[thessalonian]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

Very true and I never thought of that.

Very bogus you mean. Ecclesiastes is nowhere quoted in the New Testament so does that mean it is not scripture? Does that mean it has never given anyone any comfort to anyone or has not lead anyone to Christ by some words in it? I doudt that very much. Macabees 7 is quite a motivating and uplifting chapter for me because of the great suffering the mother and her 7 sons endured for God and for truth. Paul illudes to this in Heb 11:35.

 

[JM]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

You don't see any benefit in Maccabees chapter 7 and the matyrdom of a mother and her 7 Hebrew sons? Common AV! The Apostle Paul in fact alludes to this in Heb 11:35.

I believe Paul alludes to 1 Kings 17:19-24 and Isa. 5:12.

 

[thessalonian]

By the way, I have gone in to Protestant bookstores and have seen plaques with quotes from the book of Sirach on them. Apparently some people derive comfort from some of the great wisdom in this book. Oh, I guess anyone who buys them isn't Christian. :o

 

[thessalonian]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

You don't see any benefit in Maccabees chapter 7 and the matyrdom of a mother and her 7 Hebrew sons? Common AV! The Apostle Paul in fact alludes to this in Heb 11:35.

I believe Paul alludes to 1 Kings 19-24 and Isa. 5:12.

In Hebrews 11:35???

 

[JM]

By the way, I have gone in to Protestant bookstores and have seen plaques with quotes from the book of Sirach on them. Apparently some people derive comfort from some of the great wisdom in this book. Oh, I guess anyone who buys them isn't Christian. :o

The Geneva Bible states, “books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same.†I've also seen Catholics quote Mary from Medjugorje, does that mean the CC accepts Medjugorje apparitions?