Apocrypha

Good Day, Grace

Seems you need to update your history:

Cardinal Cajetan, the cardinal who opposed Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms and who was one of the most ardent supporters of the absolutist form of papal authority that had developed by the 16th century and that is still argued for today by Roman Catholics. (In other words, no Protestant sympathizer, he.)


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.

You desire to take aim the reformers when it is clear historiclly that Luther was not out side the view of others with in his day.

In Him,

Bill

 

You might want to research this a bit further. Every source I've seen says that the Apocrypha was included in the Wycliffe and/or the Wycliffe-Purvey Bible. An Epistle to the Laodiceans was included in the NT, as well, but I did not research this any further, other than quickly reading it.

Ed

 

Welcome to the Baptist Board.

Ed

 

Cowboymatt raises an interesting point.

The Douay-Rheims Bible (at least the one that I have) has 1 and 2 Esdras, but 1 Esdras is actually Ezra and 2 Esdras is actually Nehemiah.

In one of my other translations, I think it's the New English Bible, 1 and 2 Esdras are completely different books and are not accepted as canonical (IIRC) by the Roman Catholic Church. It also contains at least some of the other books that Cowboymatt mentions.

The books of Machabees are interesting because they present some history that maps to some prophecies in Daniel. But they also have a passage about saying prayers for the dead.

 

With respect. From the OCA website:

QUESTION:

What is the position of the Orthodox Church regarding the books that the Protestant churches refer to as the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, etc.


ANSWER:

The Old Testament books to which you refer -- know in the Orthodox Church as the "longer canon" rather than the "Apocrypha," as they are known among the Protestants -- are accepted by Orthodox Christianity as canonical scripture. These particular books are found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, but not in the Hebrew texts of the rabbis.

These books -- Tobit, Judah, more chapters of Esther and Daniel, the Books of Maccabees, the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Sirach, the Prophecy of Baruch, and the Prayer of Manasseh -- are considered by the Orthodox to be fully part of the Old testament because they are part of the longer canon that was accepted from the beginning by the early Church.

The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Jerusalem Bible (RC) these books are intermingled within the Old Testament Books and not placed separately as often in Protestant translations (e.g., KJV).

 

My next question would be, if the apocrypha was inserted by the Roman Catholics, then why is it still present in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which rejected and continues to reject, Papal Authority 500 years before the reformation?

The canon was decided on long before Trent. Please do not start everything at Trent and work your way backwards. Start at Nicene and work your way forwards.

 

My error was in the distinction about the apocrypha, but the pseudepigrapha are not accepted by any main church body.

 

There are some standard arguments presented that good Catholic apologists will shred, not than any are around here though.
These books in question were declared part of scripture as early as 400 AD. As far as I know, they were in every Bible, albeit after the reformation in a seperate section, for 1400 years at least.
There are reasons to reject their presence in the canon but lets get the facts straight at least.
Jerome does include them in the Vulgate.
They were not all originally written in Greek.
If we want to effectively argue against these books, you need to know the facts

 

Good Day, BrianH

True that Jerome included them, such inclusion does not de'facto make them part of the "canon".

In Him,

Bill

 

I suspect you and I agree about these books but lets expand this a little bit. Jerome is one person. Jerome did not determine the canon.
The church starting in the year 400 AD always had these books in some manner until they first began to be removed in any capacity 1400 years later.
Whether they are called Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha, they were in there. My 1611 KJV has them as well. Granted not in the same capacity as Catholic or Orthodox but they are in that Bible.
Did the church from 400 AD to the reformation accept them as canonical for the most part? Absolutely.
I hope people will think I am crazy enough when I say that to actually go and look to see if I am right.
Does that mean we have to? No!! but we better know the reasons why. People not well trained or knowledgeable about these matters are the easiest candidates to leave Bible believing churches.
People are repeating the old "books added at Trent" argument that any decent Catholic apologists will bring out Carthage and Hippo to show that is not true.

 

Good Day, BrianH

I never suggested that Jerome created a canon, nor does he. What he gives us is an historical account of the church of his day.

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."

Carthage and Hippo were only local in scope, as such are not germaine.


In Him,

Bill

 

If I remember right they consider them deuterocanonical.