ESV with the Apocrypha

BTW, I appreciate your thoughts and photos of the Oxford ESV. I have had this volume in my collection for about two years. I agree with your thoughts, both pro/con on it.

I wish they would publish this edition in a genuine leather bound version.

Thanks for sharing the photos!

 

Which books of the Apocrypha, in your opinion, are inspired of God?

 

The RCC uses passages in those unbiblical books to support pergatory, and when they were a bigger deal...buying indulgences.


If we allow these unbiblical books to be included in our Bibles what is the criteria? Want to add The Purpose Driven Life? Plenty of people use it as their rule of life and godliness. How about the koran? How about thoughts by Oprah?

 

Apologies for my not responding yet.

I started a reply but I am researching another citation which I've not yet found and I've been swamped here the past few days. Tomorrow looks pretty booked too. I WILL reply. Stay tuned.

 

Let me first address your question about Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach 3:29, from the NAB.

Personally I prefer the NRSV and ESV of the verse. Sirach 3:30 (NRSV) "As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin."

Firstly, we need to bear in mind that we are reading an Old Testament book, Sirach. Under the Old Covenant the term "atonement" is not parallel to the New Testament concepts of forgiveness, redemption and salvation. O.C. atonement was a temporary covering for individual sins which continually needed renewing. Consider these other examples of O.C. atonement:

Exodus 30:11-16The LORD said to Moses, “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an offering to the LORD. Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the LORD's offering. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the LORD's offering to make atonement for your lives. You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for your lives.”

Numbers 16:46And Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, and put fire on it from off the altar and lay incense on it and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone out from the LORD; the plague has begun.”

Numbers 31:50And we have brought the LORD's offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.”

2 Samuel 21:3And David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? And how shall I make atonement, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?”

Proverbs 16:6By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD one turns away from evil.

By projecting an anachronism on Sirach 3:29 (3:30) both Catholics and Protestants make the twin error as seeing this as a verse of the Old Testament which teaches salvation by works. Nothing could by further from the case.

My understanding of the historical background for Sirach 3:29 (30) runs like this: The temple tax which was due from all Jews was paid to the temple yearly. During the Babylonian captivity when teh temple did not exist, believing Jews were permitted to give their tax as alms for the poor who lived near them in the Diaspora. So, the donation to the temple which was a kind of "atonement money" was switched to the practice of almsgiving. During the time of Sriach, though the temple was rebuilt, the practice had been maintained as a solution especially for Jews who lived far from the temple.

 

There are two hermeneutical principles which come into play with this passage which preclude the development of a doctrine based upon the passage:

1. No doctrine should be established on the basis of one passage of Scripture. "Every matter must be established on the basis of two or three witnesses." Upon this principle, no doctrine of praying for the dead is established.

2. No doctrine should be established on the basis of a passage of history. The genre of the 2nd Book of Maccabees is historical. Historical books by nature are not books of docrtrine or instruction. Though the passage is an important historical insight upon one event during the Maccabean period, it cannot be used to derive instruction for the practice of the Church.

I will say it again, there are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament.

 

I don't disagree with your position, so we are in the same page both hermeneutically and historically. But, your approach to both is not the same approach that the Catholic church uses (at least as far as I can tell). The sad fact is that the Catholic church teaches these doctrines (prayers for the dead and alms for atonement), from the apocrypha in a way that violates the very principles that you explained. Here are quotes from the Catholic catechism:

So at best, we would have to say that due to poor hermenutics and a total misunderstanding of the Old Testament priesthood - coupled with a lack of understanding of the completed work of Christ on the Cross, the Catholic church teaches these doctrines by incorrectly using verses from the apocrypha. Do you agree with me?

 

Yes, they do teach error in this regard, as they do from other books of the Bible. We are in agreement then.

 

By the way, I do appreciate your coming back and replying with further detail earlier in the thread.

 

Even worse than that, there are NO major catholic dictrines that are found in the Bible either!

 

Is there gonna be an answer to this question?

 

ZERO, as NONE were written by author that was inspired by/from God!

 

I believe a discussion of the inspiration of Scripture would be helpful and I would be glad to participate. Open another thread, and send me the link and we can discuss the inspiration/non-inspiration of the disputed books of the Old Testament.

Hint: my answer will not have anything to do with "which books in my opinion".

 

No, thanks. We have had several discussions around the topic of Inspiration since I've been a regular here and I'm not really interested in covering that ground again right now.

Why not just a short answer and list the so-called 'apocryphal' books you hold as inspired of God?

 

My stand is that with the testimony of the texts themselves and their treatment throughout church history, no, they are not inspired. They are interesting to read, but unreliable for doctrine.

 

I have a different view based upon my study of the usage of these books historically in the Church.

The question of "inspiration" is not left open to an individual's choice, I beleive, (so Luther's opinion is thus discounted, I'm afraid). I do not believe in the formal canons of the Church councils, either, but rather in the informal canons of the usage of the Church over time, at least in part. The Church body in agregate over centuries has given us its judgment as to what is Scripture useful for its own edification and encouragment. Are the disputed books of the Old Testament among them? The answer to that question can lead us in the right direction on the question of the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture.

 

the problem is that the Lord jesus, Apostles etc NEVER recognized them as being such!

 

So, let me see if I understand your position...

You believe that if the Lord Jesus, or the Apostles, or etc (whatever that might mean), do not "recognize" a specific book, it should not be considered Scripture.

Is that your view? If so, please define "recognize".

 

I am genuinely interested in your definition of inspiration. Would you mind elaborating on your views of inspiration? I take a cookie-cutter approach (from what I was taught in college) about the inspiration of the scriptures and the canon in general - 66 books. The Council of Trent pretty much sealed the canon as we know it today in western Christianity for both Catholics (72 books) and Protestants (66 books).

Given the discrepancy that exists between Protestant / Catholic / Eastern churches, which books do you believe should have been included? Also, what about other writings such as found in the pseudepigrapha? What knowledge and/or doctrines do you think the church is missing today by not including them?

 

the Jews had officially ratified the OT canon of Books by time of Jesus, and all 27 books tob be recognized later were inspired/written and meing read as authorative books already during the Apsotolic era!

the apostolic church already had the canon of OT books that were officially recognized, NO Apocrapha/Deutrocanonical books in there, and Apostolic church also received as from God and learned from the 27 books that were later raitified as in the canon!