Apocrypha

[track2004]

Ok. So one of my friends asked me the other day about the apocrypha and why we (Catholics) use it and why she (Protestants) don't. I didn't have a good answer so I looked it up on PM and googled it. There seem to be some fairly solid arguements for either side, so at this point I'm kind of torn. Though I see the (at least) historical significance and (at most) inspired Word of God, I still don't have a good answer. I sent her an email from a few links I found, and after talking to her she seems to see things about the way I am: kinda fuzzy.

This doesn't quite sound like its totally for the debate board, but I find most of the people who check out this forum the most educated and figured some Protestants on the site could give their two cents on the matter because I'd really apperciate knowing a bit more about this.

Pax - Track

[spathariossa]

The protestants threw out the deuterocanonical books because there was no extant Hebrew predecessor for them. That doesn't make them "apocryphal" it merely means that the documents didn't exist. It would be like throwing out everything in the new testament that we don't have an original ancient greek document for.

[jezic]

In one of them, an addition to Daniel there is a reference to Purgatory that Martin Luther didn't like so it got thrown out.

(i think it was from daniel, though i am not positive.)

[StColette]

Just a bunch of quotes about the Canon and such oh and about the Jewish Council of Jamnia or Javneh that the Protestant Bible receives it's Old Testament Canon from.

Council of Rome [A.D. 382])"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus).

A council held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.

(Council of Hippo [A.D. 393])"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (canon 36).

(Council of Carthage III [A.D. 397])"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (canon 47).

Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405

And speaking of the "Apocrypha" they were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.


]+++ Even among the Jews the council held no authority to determine what was Canonical scripture and what was not.

+++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1148)."Protestantism derives its Old Testament Canon from the European Jews who followed the Canon of the council of Jamnia or Javneh (90 CE.)."

+++(Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 2, page 174)." In any case, Christians have no reason to accept Jewish canon declared after our Lord ascension "

+++(Errata of the King James 1965)"This counsel (I.E. Javneh 90A.D.) not only declared the Deutero Canonical books as Christian fabrication but went so far as to required all Jews to curse the Name of Jesus of Nazerith.The council lacking in authority could not bring in end to the issue of the Deutero Canonical books. Even today the Ethiopian Jews still follow the original Canon of the septuagint. It is the counsil of Javneh's Canon that the Protestants accept and use for their Bible."

+++(Errata of the King James 1965)"The counsel had no real authority (even among the Jews) to determine the Canonicity of scripture. Considering this counsel happened 60 years after Christ died there is no reason for Christians to accept their verdict."

+++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1146)"There is no evidence that the Rabbis at the council of Javneh (90A.D.), had the legitimate authority to determine scripture for the Jewish religion"

+++(Encyclopaedia of Religion, Vol. 2, page 173)"The authority of council ( Javneh 90A.D.) was rejected by the early Christians and the Jews of Ethiopia and Alexandria."

+++(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963 p.1324)"The council of Javneh ( 90 A.D.) was made out above Rabbis ( or teachers ) with no religious authority to accept or reject scripture."

+++(The Books of The Bible 1997 p.102)"Jews in many parts of the Roman Empire ( such as Alexandria and Ethiopia ) refused to accept Javneh's ( 90A.D.) claime of authority"

+++(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963 ) "Even in the second century of the Christian era the Jewish rabbis were not fully agreed on the Canonicity of certan books (e.g. Cant, Eccl; cfr. Also 4, Esd 14,44ff)."

+++(The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "

+++(Dictionary of Biblical Literacy 1986. p.321)"Precisely when Jewish leadership officially adopted the traditional 39 books of the so-called "Hebrew Canon" is not known; nor is there agreement as to exactly what criteria were used in determining the Canon."

+++(Scripture alone? 1999)"The decision of a Jewish council which was held more than 50 years after the resurrection of Christ are not binding on the Christian community just as the ritual walls of Judaism are not binding on the Christians.... The council was to some extent a polemic directed specifically against the "sect" of Christianity, therefore, was inherently opposed to Christianity. These Jews most likely accept the shorter Pharisaic Canon precisely because the early Christians accepted the longer Septuagint canon the decisions of this council represented the judgment of just one branch of Judaism within Palestine not of Judaism as a whole"

+++(Background To The Bible, An introduction to Scripture Study 1978. p.124)There is no record of a decision reached by an authoritative Jewish body closing the Old Testament Canon. Each synagogue was authonomous;"

+++(Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)."The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven Deutero Canonical books "

+++It was from the council of Jamnia or Javneh ( 90 A.D. ) which the Protestant reformers drew their Old Testament Canon.

+++(DEFENDING THE DEUTERO CANONICALS 1996 p.621)To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the Deutero Canonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the Deutero Canonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint.

+++(The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright 1993)most Protestant bodies, whose canon conforms to that of the contemporary Hebrew Bible. There the books follow the order of the Palestinian Hebrew Canon, which appears to have been adopted by A.D. c.100, although most of the books had clearly received Canonical status well before this time.

+++(Errata of the King James 1965 p.324)"This counsel (I.E. Javneh 90A.D.) not only declared the Deutero-Canonical books as Christian fabrication but when so far as to required all Jews to curse the Name of Jesus of Nazerith.The council lacking in authority could not bring in end to the issue of the Deutero Canonical books. Even today the Ethiopian Jews still follow the original Canon of the Septuagint. It is the counsil of Javneh's Canon that the Protestants accept and use for their Bible."

+++(encyclopedia Americana 1995 Vol 15 p.1496)"The Protestant Old Testament Canon is based upon the Jewish council of Javneh (90 C.E.)"

+++(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963 p.1287)"It was from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and the council of Jamnia (or Javneh) which the Protestant reformers drew their Old Testament Canon."

[StColette]

For more resources try [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=4464"]The Biblical Canon ( Reference Section )[/url] Phatcatholic has collected a large amount of articles and sites about the Biblical Canon so try checking them out

[argent_paladin]

jezic was referring to Maccabees, not Daniel. In the passage, believers pray for the dead. But, if there is only heaven and hell that would be futile, because the saints don't need our prayers and the residents of hell wouldn't benefit from them. So, purgatory.

2 Maccabees 12:38-45:
"38: Then Judas assembled his army...
39: On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40: Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
41: So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
42: and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
44: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

[track2004]

I've read the sites and know most of what they said or implied that the Protestant Refromation didn't like. Really, I guess, my question is what major flaws do you all see in the Protestant arguement against them and in our arguement for them. I just want to present her with some reasonably unbiased reasons and rebuttals from either side because it's in her own freedom to decide what she is going to believe about them.

[Archangel]

One thing I have noticed is that Protestants can never say who, when, and where their Old and New Testament canons were defined without running into contradictions.

For one thing, it contradicts their notion of sola scriptura because the bible does not teach which books are inspired or not.

[cathqat]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 31 2005, 01:56 PM'] The protestants threw out the deuterocanonical books because there was no extant Hebrew predecessor for them. [/quote]
Actually, Hebrew copies of some of the books did [i]exist[/i], they just weren't [i]known[/i]. A Hebrew Tobit, for example, was found among the Qumran scrolls.

[journeyman]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Feb 6 2005, 07:44 PM'] Actually, Hebrew copies of some of the books did [i]exist[/i], they just weren't [i]known[/i]. A Hebrew Tobit, for example, was found among the Qumran scrolls. [/quote]
That poses an interesting question . . . If the reformation leaders adopted the Jerusalem canon for the Old Testament over the Alexandria canon (deeming the Hebrew more reliable than the Greek), does the discovery of a missing book in Hebrew change the line up of books? Or do we get to hear stories about Qumran being the center of a dissident sect and its selection of books would not be binding . . . ?

[cathqat]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Feb 6 2005, 08:12 PM'] That poses an interesting question . . . If the reformation leaders adopted the Jerusalem canon for the Old Testament over the Alexandria canon (deeming the Hebrew more reliable than the Greek), does the discovery of a missing book in Hebrew change the line up of books? Or do we get to hear stories about Qumran being the center of a dissident sect and its selection of books would not be binding . . . ? [/quote]
*LOL* I don't think most Protestants reflect on the origin of their canon that much.

[Theoketos]

Did you know that the first King James Bible had the 7 now missing books in it?

[cathqat]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Feb 7 2005, 11:19 AM'] Did you know that the first King James Bible had the 7 now missing books in it? [/quote]
Yup. You can read them online here:
[url="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html"]KJV with deuterocanonicals[/url]

Or purchase them in the following Bibles:
[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192835254"]Oxford University Press KJV with deuterocanon[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840700415"]1611 KJV from Nelson[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565631609"]1611 KJV from Hendrickson[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0529101831"]KJV deuterocanon-only[/url]

I've got the [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840700415"]1611 KJV from Nelson[/url]. It's fun to use in discussions with KJV-onlyists: pointing out the presence of the deutrocanonical books, pointing out the alternate readings in the margins, etc. Most of them claim to use the 1611 KJV, but they're really using later revisions.

[mulls]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Feb 7 2005, 12:19 PM'] Did you know that the first King James Bible had the 7 now missing books in it? [/quote]
i've seen a copy of one. the apocrypha were specially marked and at the end of the bible (or maybe at the end of the OT, don't remember).

[track2004]

The only time I've seen the KJV with them is like Mulls said as a seperate section, typically inbetween the OT and NT and specially marked.