Validity of Scripture, the Apocrypha versus the King James

[reddogs]

Many say it doesnt matter what Bible you read, but as false beliefs crept into the church, they had to be backed up just as today many churches are putting out their own versions of the Bible with changes in text just enough to cover their views or questionable doctrines. We must be very careful whenever we move away from the tried and true text and bring in corruptions such as in the Apocrypha.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica...
"Apocrypha, (from Greek apokryptein, “to hide away”), in biblical literature, works outside an accepted canon of scripture. The history of the term’s usage indicates that it referred to a body of esoteric writings that were at first prized, later tolerated, and finally excluded. In its broadest sense apocrypha has come to mean any writings of dubious authority."

Many false doctrines came into the church and are supported by the writings of the Gnostics and by the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha is a collection of books with mysticism and fables mixed into stories, not books of faith. Not a bit of these extra books it has is inspired, or even claims to be. If fact, the Jews never considered these stories to be divinely inspired as they clearly denied their authority. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of Josephus that they were only 22 books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. The Old Testament Canon in the Bible today contains 39 books while the Hebrew canon combines them 22 or 24. These are the exact same books as the Protestants have in their Bibles, but they are just arranged differently and some of the books are combined into one. For example, Kings is one book. There is not 1st Kings and 2nd Kings. Also, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) are one book in the Hebrew Canon. Jerome, a Biblical scholar who was able to read the Hebrew Canon and was translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. But the leaders in Rome forced him to include it in his translation, and later they began a campaign to banish Jerome.

Many false doctrines came into the church and are supported by the writings of the Gnostics and by the Apocrypha The Apocrypha if one looks are books based on mysticism and supposedly contain the secret doctrines (hidden things, which are opened to the enlightened or illuminated ones.)

Regarding the Apocrypha, The Council of Trent decreed:
Whoever shall not receive as sacred and canonical all these books and every part of them, as they are commonly read in the Catholic Church, and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, or shall knowingly and deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed. - Council of Trent fourth session.

These writings were never considered part of the Canon, as they clearly contradict the Scriptures as can be seen in the following few examples:

Bewitching Art:
Tobias 6:4-8 ... Open the fish, and take the heart and liver and the gall .....if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall no more be vexed. As for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath witness in his eyes, and he shall be healed.

The Biblical rebuke to this statement is found in Mark 16:17 and Acts 16:18:
And signs will follow to those believing these things: in My name they will cast out demons. Mark 16:17
... But being distressed, and turning to the demonic spirit, Paul said, I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her! And it came out in that hour. Acts 16:18

Salvation by Works:
Tobias 12:9 For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Biblical rebuke: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers. 1 Peter 1:18-19

Prayer for Dead:
2 Maccabees 12:43-46, ... For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead ....Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Biblical rebuke: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John 1:7

The Apocrypha was never accepted by the Reformation and the fact is that those translations that lean heavily on Catholic documents are highly problematic to say the least. The Textus Receptus was the basis of the Bibles of the Reformation as it was the textual base for many Reformation-era translations of the New Testament into various languages which led up to the KJV, and the Apocrypha was seen for the false corruption that it was.

 

[reddogs]

Here is a good explanation I came across that lays it out..

"Rejection by the Jewish Community
3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4. While the Dead Sea scrolls contain copies of several books of the Apocrypha, they contain far more copies of pseudepigraphal books like 1 Enoch that even the Roman Catholic church admits are clearly not inspired. What is important to note here, however, is that owning copies of a book does not imply belief in that book's inspiration. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a variety of community rules, historical documents, festival calendars, and other uninspired documents that the community found useful. The scrolls do not contain commentaries on the Apocrypha as they do for the Jewish Old Testament books, and they do not cite the Apocrypha authoritatively as scripture. This probably indicates that even the Essene community did not regard the Apocrypha as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books.3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

False Teachings
9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)

• The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
• Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
• Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45)."...Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible | CARM.org

 

[reddogs]

Here is more..
21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
   And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of Gods authorship.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
   Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
    And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)
    And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)
    And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
    "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
    They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jeromes Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) "Read the divine Scriptures namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
19. The apocrypha wasnt included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible

 

[miamited]

Hi reddogs

That looks like a fairly accurate portrayal of the books known as the Apocrypha. Although I don't share your allegiance to the KJ translation of the Scriptures. The KJ is merely a translation from the best sources available to the translator at the time, although there really is question as to whether or not those who made up the body of translators really had a lot of the historical record.

 

[reddogs]

Hi reddogs

That looks like a fairly accurate portrayal of the books known as the Apocrypha. Although I don't share your allegiance to the KJ translation of the Scriptures. The KJ is merely a translation from the best sources available to the translator at the time, although there really is question as to whether or not those who made up the body of translators really had a lot of the historical record.

Well, what would you prefer, the Geneva Bible..?

 

[miamited]

Well, what would you prefer, the Geneva Bible..?

No, I prefer the NKJV and the older version of the NIV and several of the other current translations.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi reddogs

That looks like a fairly accurate portrayal of the books known as the Apocrypha. Although I don't share your allegiance to the KJ translation of the Scriptures. The KJ is merely a translation from the best sources available to the translator at the time, although there really is question as to whether or not those who made up the body of translators really had a lot of the historical record.

Some of those books can be read as commentary, but not as infallable word of God. Some of these commentary are necessary tool to enlighten you on ancient Jewish philosophies, help you understand the historical and cultural context, it sets the narrative through which you read the bible correctly. The bible is sufficient but NOT exhaustive, says the bible itself - "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (Jn. 21:25) It's like a non-fiction report or biography with hundreds upon hundreds of footnotes, which lead you to these other references. You find something puzzling, you go check the footnote instead of trying to figure it out through your own preconceived notions. I think that's what apocrypha is for, similar to Josephus's historical documentation.

 

[miamited]

Hi Carry_Your_Name

are necessary tool to enlighten you on ancient Jewish philosophies,

Honestly, between you and me and the lamppost, I'm not really looking to understand 'ancient Jewish philosophies. The Jews were just God's writing instruments. Like you might hold a pen, God held up several specific Jews to be His prophets and they wrote, according to Paul, as the Holy Spirit of God led them to write. Even writing about things for which they likely had no understanding themselves. What I want to understand is God's testimony to me. What God has caused to be written over the centuries to reveal Himself and His purposes and plans to me. For that, I'm interested in studying the Scriptures so that I can know God. I don't study the Scriptures to understand 'ancient Jewish philosophies'. That would be something for philosophers to read about and work to understand and know how ancient Jews lived within their communities and how they understood things. I'm not interested in that knowledge as far as seeking for it.

God has said that His word is a lamp unto my feet, not all of the writings that man has cobbled together outside of His testimony to explain how they understood His testimony. Quite frankly, for the Jews overall, very, very, very few of them seemed to have had the correct understanding of God's testimony or they would have hailed Jesus as their Messiah... right?

I mean, Daniel clearly wrote, that at the end of the 69 sevens, Messiah would be here. They obviously weren't keeping an accounting of those 70 sevens that Daniel wrote to them about. Because Jesus was here right at the end of the 69 sevens, just as God's word had told them he would be.

 

[Whatever]

The original King James bible had the Apocrypha. It was after Malachi and before Matthew.
That was my first Bible. It has beautiful pictures in it also.

Years later when I bought a New American Standard Bible, I wondered where all these other books went.

 

[RedPill]

Some point to the inclusion of the Apocryphal Old Testament books in Bibles. All pure Bibles viewed these books as non-canonical and said so in their preface.

The Wycliffe Bible warned in its Prologue that only those books written in Hebrew were canonical. Others, it said,

“...shall be set among Apocrypha, that is, without authority of belief...[that] be not of the authority of bible ancient Hebrew...

[R]eceiveth not them among holy Scripture...that be not ancient Hebrew and be not of the number of holy writ;

[T]hey aught to be cast far away...for me doubteth the truth thereof” (Prologue, pp. 1, 2).

Wycliffe said that when the “Word of God is not heard, spiritual death broods over all” (Schaff-Herzog, s.v. Wyclif, pp. 464, 466).

“[H]e designated the Bible as the one authority for believers, and so teaching, traditions, bulls, symbols, and censures go by the board as far as they do not rest on Scripture.”

Tyndale and Coverdale did not approve of the Apocrypha. King James, himself did not approve of it.

Tyndale would not translate the Apocrypha. Coverdale removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament scriptures. He prefaced his intertestamental section saying, these books “are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible neither are they found in the Canon of the Hebrew...[and] are not judged among the doctors to be of like reputation with the other scripture...And the chief cause thereof is this: there be many places in them, that seem to be repugnant unto the open and manifest truth in the other books of the Bible” (Dore, 2nd ed., p. 110).

Rogers’ Thomas Matthew’s Bible said, “the books called Apocrypha...are not found in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee” (Dore, 2nd ed., p. 116).

Samuel Ward was among a few who were assigned the task of translating the Apocrypha. King James I said:

“As to the Apocryphal books, I omit them because I am no papist.” (Basilikon Doron ).

Most Christians shared the King’s desire for a Bible without the bulky Apocrypha. As early as 1612 printers (London: Barker), anxious to supply the large demand, printed Bibles without the appendage of the unnecessary Apocrypha. They were following the pattern of the quarto edition of the Great Bible (ed. 1549), some copies of the 1599 Geneva, a quarto edition of the Bishops’ Bible, dated 1577, and many personal hand-sized earlier Bibles. Antiquarian booksellers today offer for sale numerous early copies of the KJV without the Apocrypha (e.g. 1612, 1629 (Norton and Bill “Printers to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty”), 1637, 1653, 1662, 1682; Peter Cresswell, Antiquarian Bibles, South Humberside, England: Humber Books, Catalogue 23 et al,; TBS, No. 31).

The Apocrypha is a series of books, written between B.C. 250 and B.C. 100, which exemplify the “superstitious” “traditions,” “imaginations,” and “commandments of men” which Jesus and Paul warned against (Acts 17:22, Matt. 15:9, Rom. 1:21, Gal. 1:14). The Apocrypha characterizes the “cultural, ethical, and religious background” which surrounded the time of Christ. Even Princeton’s Bruce Metzger writes:

“This body of literature also supplies important information regarding the life and thoughts of the Jewish people during a significant period of their history, namely the period just prior to the emergence of Christianity. By becoming acquainted with these books, therefore, one will be better able to understand the political, ethical, and religious background of the contemporaries of Jesus Christ” (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, NY: Oxford University Press, 1957, p. viii).

For the same reason, current Study Bibles, like the Scofield Reference Bible (“From Malachi to Matthew”) and Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (“Between the Testaments”) include a section between the Old Testament and the New Testament, explaining the events, history and beliefs of the intertestamental period. The KJV translators, like early Bibles, simply included the real thing. No one today thinks that Scofield’s notes are a part of the Bible, just as no true Christian in 1611 thought that the Apocrypha was a part of the Bible. Bible Prologues stated ‘up front’ that the Apocrypha was not scripture. The Great Bible’s Prologue stated that the Apocrypha was not “found in the Hebrew” Bible. Wycliffe’s Prologue said that the Apocrypha “is, without authority.” Luther’s Bible (1534 ed.) stated that the Apocrypha is “not to be considered as equal to Holy Scriptures.” The early Westminster Confession of Faith stated that the Apocrypha is “no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the church of God; nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” The KJV translators said that the Apocrypha was not scripture because it was not written in Hebrew, nor ever accepted by the Jews or early Christians, nor ever mentioned by Jesus Christ -- because it detailed those “superstitious” “traditions” which Jesus and Paul warned about.

Early Bibles, including the KJV, placed numerous non-Biblical items within the binding of the Bibles for practical reasons. They included things like calendars, genealogies, maps, gazetteers, metrical Psalms for singing, and the Apocrypha (which shed light on just exactly what “superstitions” and “traditions” were being followed by the Jews). Even today Bibles include concordances, dictionaries, notes, histories, commentaries, and cross references. No one mistakes these for being equal to the scriptures. In 1611 and before, few people had a collection of books, most owned only one book, the Bible. Binding other materials within it served a practical need. Even today it is less expensive to print and purchase one book of 1200 pages, than two books each having 600 pages.

Unlike pure early English Bibles, such as the KJV, 1611, which separated the Apocrypha from the Bible, the corrupt Catholic bibles (e.g. New Jerusalem Bible) and their manuscripts (e.g. Vaticanus from which the TNIV, ESV, HCSB NIV, and NASB are translated) intersperse these corrupt books among those of the Bible. Rather than including them as a warning of exactly what “commandments of men” Jesus was warning about, these corrupt versions placed Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees after the book of Nehemiah; they placed Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus following the Song of Solomon and Baruch following Lamentations. The Song of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon are included in the book of Daniel. Why? The Catholic church has adopted the “traditions of men” expounded in these books. Some of the heresies included in these books include the following taken from the New Jerusalem Bible:

1.) “[A]lmsgiving expiates sins” and “almsgiving saves from death and purges every kind of sin” (Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Tobit 12:9).

2.) Purgatory, and prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:39-45).

3.) “[T]orments and the rack...irons” for the “disobedient” (Ecclesiasticus 33:24-29).

4.) The immaculate conception of Mary; reincarnation and transmigration of souls for New Agers and Hindus (Wisdom 8:19, 20).

5.) Monism and pantheism. “For your imperishable spirit is in everything!” (Wisdom 12:1). Even new versions changes, like the NKJV’s “God is spirit” (John 4:24) echo the New Age concept that god is in “everything.”

Since Catholic bibles include the Apocrypha as scripture, it becomes vital that Bibles no longer include it, even as history.

 

[Whatever]

I remember reading a commentary that said the writer of Hebrews got some of his stuff from Maccabees.

Heb 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36 Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented.

Also:
Jude 1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,

The book of Enoch is part of the Apocrypha.

But I agree with you.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Honestly, between you and me and the lamppost, I'm not really looking to understand 'ancient Jewish philosophies. The Jews were just God's writing instruments.

And yet the bible is all about the Jews, Gentiles are grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel, God's covenant remains effective with Israel forever, there is no "great replacement" with the Gentile church. As a sad matter of fact, Christianity has been declining in North America and Western Europe, but you know where it is blossoming? Jewish communities, you've got messianic Jews who sincerely accept Jesus as their long expected messiah. That's the budding of the "fig tree" which Jesus prophesied in all three synoptic gospels.

 

[miamited]

Hi Carry_Your_Name

And yet the bible is all about the Jews,

Yes, the Scriptures were initially written by and for the Jew. That doesn't mean that I have to know how the Jews lived, culturally or anything. I just have to believe, as Paul did, that the Jews were entrusted with the very oracles of God, and therefore, everything they wrote that are considered the Scriptures is true. Whether or not the Jews lived a certain way. I mean, as I've explained before, the Jews didn't even understand that their Messiah was standing in front of them at the exact moment in time that Daniel told them that he would be. The Jews, somehow forgot all about that night that the skies opened up with a heavenly host of God's angels declaring the birth of some small insignificant baby in Bethlehem. The Jews turned God's law concerning the Sabbath into a burden to be borne, and not a day of rest. Even Jesus decried the how poorly the Jewish leadership was doing. So, hopefully you understand that I'm not much concerned with 'how' the Jews lived. I'm just concerned with this book that Jesus referred to as the Scriptures, God's word, that they brought forth to us as a part of their service to the God that they served. That's all. How the Jews made their bread or ate their meals or built their homes or conversed with one another isn't really anything that I think we need to be particularly concerned with.

But then, I'm one to believe that the Scriptures were only written by the Jews, not that they were the author of the work. And that it was only in this work of recording God's testimony to His created that I need to be concerned with in the Jewish life. I'm not one to think that some things were written in the Scriptures that weren't true, but it was how the Jewish people understood things.

 

[miamited]

That's the budding of the "fig tree" which Jesus prophesied in all three synoptic gospels.

Yes, I agree with that understanding.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Some point to the inclusion of the Apocryphal Old Testament books in Bibles. All pure Bibles viewed these books as non-canonical and said so in their preface.

The Wycliffe Bible warned in its Prologue that only those books written in Hebrew were canonical. Others, it said,

“...shall be set among Apocrypha, that is, without authority of belief...[that] be not of the authority of bible ancient Hebrew...

[R]eceiveth not them among holy Scripture...that be not ancient Hebrew and be not of the number of holy writ;

[T]hey aught to be cast far away...for me doubteth the truth thereof” (Prologue, pp. 1, 2).

Wycliffe said that when the “Word of God is not heard, spiritual death broods over all” (Schaff-Herzog, s.v. Wyclif, pp. 464, 466).

“[H]e designated the Bible as the one authority for believers, and so teaching, traditions, bulls, symbols, and censures go by the board as far as they do not rest on Scripture.”

Tyndale and Coverdale did not approve of the Apocrypha. King James, himself did not approve of it.

Tyndale would not translate the Apocrypha. Coverdale removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament scriptures. He prefaced his intertestamental section saying, these books “are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible neither are they found in the Canon of the Hebrew...[and] are not judged among the doctors to be of like reputation with the other scripture...And the chief cause thereof is this: there be many places in them, that seem to be repugnant unto the open and manifest truth in the other books of the Bible” (Dore, 2nd ed., p. 110).

Rogers’ Thomas Matthew’s Bible said, “the books called Apocrypha...are not found in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee” (Dore, 2nd ed., p. 116).

Samuel Ward was among a few who were assigned the task of translating the Apocrypha. King James I said:

“As to the Apocryphal books, I omit them because I am no papist.” (Basilikon Doron ).

Most Christians shared the King’s desire for a Bible without the bulky Apocrypha. As early as 1612 printers (London: Barker), anxious to supply the large demand, printed Bibles without the appendage of the unnecessary Apocrypha. They were following the pattern of the quarto edition of the Great Bible (ed. 1549), some copies of the 1599 Geneva, a quarto edition of the Bishops’ Bible, dated 1577, and many personal hand-sized earlier Bibles. Antiquarian booksellers today offer for sale numerous early copies of the KJV without the Apocrypha (e.g. 1612, 1629 (Norton and Bill “Printers to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty”), 1637, 1653, 1662, 1682; Peter Cresswell, Antiquarian Bibles, South Humberside, England: Humber Books, Catalogue 23 et al,; TBS, No. 31).

The Apocrypha is a series of books, written between B.C. 250 and B.C. 100, which exemplify the “superstitious” “traditions,” “imaginations,” and “commandments of men” which Jesus and Paul warned against (Acts 17:22, Matt. 15:9, Rom. 1:21, Gal. 1:14). The Apocrypha characterizes the “cultural, ethical, and religious background” which surrounded the time of Christ. Even Princeton’s Bruce Metzger writes:

“This body of literature also supplies important information regarding the life and thoughts of the Jewish people during a significant period of their history, namely the period just prior to the emergence of Christianity. By becoming acquainted with these books, therefore, one will be better able to understand the political, ethical, and religious background of the contemporaries of Jesus Christ” (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, NY: Oxford University Press, 1957, p. viii).

For the same reason, current Study Bibles, like the Scofield Reference Bible (“From Malachi to Matthew”) and Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (“Between the Testaments”) include a section between the Old Testament and the New Testament, explaining the events, history and beliefs of the intertestamental period. The KJV translators, like early Bibles, simply included the real thing. No one today thinks that Scofield’s notes are a part of the Bible, just as no true Christian in 1611 thought that the Apocrypha was a part of the Bible. Bible Prologues stated ‘up front’ that the Apocrypha was not scripture. The Great Bible’s Prologue stated that the Apocrypha was not “found in the Hebrew” Bible. Wycliffe’s Prologue said that the Apocrypha “is, without authority.” Luther’s Bible (1534 ed.) stated that the Apocrypha is “not to be considered as equal to Holy Scriptures.” The early Westminster Confession of Faith stated that the Apocrypha is “no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the church of God; nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” The KJV translators said that the Apocrypha was not scripture because it was not written in Hebrew, nor ever accepted by the Jews or early Christians, nor ever mentioned by Jesus Christ -- because it detailed those “superstitious” “traditions” which Jesus and Paul warned about.

Early Bibles, including the KJV, placed numerous non-Biblical items within the binding of the Bibles for practical reasons. They included things like calendars, genealogies, maps, gazetteers, metrical Psalms for singing, and the Apocrypha (which shed light on just exactly what “superstitions” and “traditions” were being followed by the Jews). Even today Bibles include concordances, dictionaries, notes, histories, commentaries, and cross references. No one mistakes these for being equal to the scriptures. In 1611 and before, few people had a collection of books, most owned only one book, the Bible. Binding other materials within it served a practical need. Even today it is less expensive to print and purchase one book of 1200 pages, than two books each having 600 pages.

Unlike pure early English Bibles, such as the KJV, 1611, which separated the Apocrypha from the Bible, the corrupt Catholic bibles (e.g. New Jerusalem Bible) and their manuscripts (e.g. Vaticanus from which the TNIV, ESV, HCSB NIV, and NASB are translated) intersperse these corrupt books among those of the Bible. Rather than including them as a warning of exactly what “commandments of men” Jesus was warning about, these corrupt versions placed Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees after the book of Nehemiah; they placed Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus following the Song of Solomon and Baruch following Lamentations. The Song of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon are included in the book of Daniel. Why? The Catholic church has adopted the “traditions of men” expounded in these books. Some of the heresies included in these books include the following taken from the New Jerusalem Bible:

1.) “[A]lmsgiving expiates sins” and “almsgiving saves from death and purges every kind of sin” (Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Tobit 12:9).

2.) Purgatory, and prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:39-45).

3.) “[T]orments and the rack...irons” for the “disobedient” (Ecclesiasticus 33:24-29).

4.) The immaculate conception of Mary; reincarnation and transmigration of souls for New Agers and Hindus (Wisdom 8:19, 20).

5.) Monism and pantheism. “For your imperishable spirit is in everything!” (Wisdom 12:1). Even new versions changes, like the NKJV’s “God is spirit” (John 4:24) echo the New Age concept that god is in “everything.”

Since Catholic bibles include the Apocrypha as scripture, it becomes vital that Bibles no longer include it, even as history.

Do you know how the modern Hebrew Old Testament came about? Itbis called the Masoretic Text because of the post Christian Jewish scholars who reinvented ancient Hebrew and translated a certain Greek Text of the Old Testament which was a translation of the actual ancient Hebrew language.
Do you know where that Greek translation came from?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

How the Jews made their bread or ate their meals or built their homes or conversed with one another isn't really anything that I think we need to be particularly concerned with.

I don't think we can correctly discern the word of God if we are clueless of those cultural references. You're prone to error when you read these ancient religious texts originated from the Middle East from a modern, western, rationalistic view. Large portions of Scripture are polemics, which means a sharp repudiation on another's opinions, views or principles, the entire Sermon on the Mount is a polemic against the Pharisees' false teachings, the entire Olivet Discourse is a polemic against the disciples' wrong expectation that the destruction of the second temple would be the end of the world, then Jesus will come as a conquering general; nearly every Pauline epistle was a polemic in response of certain problems in various church communities, even the creation account was a polemic against Canaanite mythologies in which celestial bodies and "great sea creatures" were worshipped. These are the broad context which I think are important in bible study. The bible wasn't dropped from the sky or written in a vacuum as many Christians think it was. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," but not for worship and devotion. We worship God the Creator of the universe in spirit and truth, word of God is a means to that end, not the end by and of itself.

 

[miamited]

Hey Carry_Your_Name

I don't think we can correctly discern the word of God if we are clueless of those cultural references.

You're free to believe that.

You're prone to error when you read these ancient religious texts originated from the Middle East from a modern, western, rationalistic view. Large portions of Scripture are polemics, which means a sharp repudiation on another's opinions, views or principles, the entire Sermon on the Mount is a polemic against the Pharisees' false teachings, the entire Olivet Discourse is a polemic against the disciples' wrong expectation that the destruction of the second temple would be the end of the world, then Jesus will come as a conquering general; nearly every Pauline epistle was a polemic in response of certain problems in various church communities, even the creation account was a polemic against Canaanite mythologies in which celestial bodies and "great sea creatures" were worshipped.

Ok if you say so. I don't believe we need all of that to understand the simplicity of the Scriptures. God created man. Man sinned. God offered mankind a way out of the consequence of their sin through His Son, Jesus. Jesus lived a sinless life, died in our place, and God raised him from the dead to prove to us that He can do what He has promised to do for those who would repent and love Him. I don't find that anyone needs to know how the Jews lived to get that, but ok, if you say so.

The bible wasn't dropped from the sky or written in a vacuum as many Christians think it was.

I honestly don't know any believers who think that the Scriptures dropped from the sky. You must run with an awesome crowd. And I'm not sure what 'written in a vacuum' is supposed to mean as regards the truth of God's word and the purpose for which God sent it forth. Could you explain that? What do you mean that the Scriptures weren't written in a vacuum. I honestly don't know of any written work that was written in a vacuum. Is that a new form of writing? One goes into a room with no air and tries to write as long as they can before they die? LOL

 

[miamited]

Large portions of Scripture are polemics, which means a sharp repudiation on another's opinions, views or principles,

I wonder if Paul understood the Scriptures in that way? 'A sharp repudiation on another's opinions, views or principles. Quite frankly, I don't even understand what that statement says, I'm pretty sure Paul didn't get it.

 

[jasonc]

I'm hardly against understanding the first audience of the bible ,but it seems one is implying that I as a son of a Jew ,who was raised in the temple and spoke Hebrew at one time .my aunt still can recite the Torah in Hebrew ,should be so Jewish that I'm kosher and wear a kippah and worship on the shabaat .

I should place a mezuzah on my front door .

That gentiles ought to do the same .

My dad and aunt are saved and my dad didn't raise me in the temple .

 

[miamited]

Hi Carry_Your_Name

Hey, what is it that you believe that I don't understand about the Scriptures because I don't know all this stuff about polemics? Your initial claim was that some of these Apocryphal accounts are 'necessary' for us to form a criteria by which we can understand the Scriptures 'correctly'. I hear that, but I question why you think that one needs to know these Apocryphal writings to have a 'correct' understanding of the Scriptures. I'm not particularly well versed on the Apocryphal writings and so I'm curious as to what you think one misses out in understanding the Scriptures correctly if they aren't so familiar? Polemic: A sharp repudiation on another's opinions, views or principles. That's what a polemic is, huh? That's almost too hard for me to wrap my head around. So, I should be reading those writings that provide me a sharp repudiation on who? Myself? My own opinions, views or principles? Polemic. I'm still not sure I get it, sorry.