Why was Apocrypha rejected?
John Symons
csan...@alfalfa.csci.csc.com@csci.csc.com (Christian Sanelli) wrote:
> Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
> church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
> other books of the bible!
But this is not entirely true! Many early Christians found them helpful
reading, it is true, but it is clear that they made a distinction between
this and inspired Scripture. Various lists have been dug up, but
generally, Christians followed (for the Old Testament books at least) the
canonical lists set by the Jews for their Scriptures, and these are the
books we currently have in our Old Testament.
Modern Christians, *including* the Catholic Church, who uses these books
most, also make a clear distinction between them and the canonical
writings. The Apocrypha are included as "deutero-canonical" material -
that is, a step below the rest. While I don't personally agree with giving
them any sort of authority like that of Scripture, (yes, I'm a protestant)
it is clear even among those that do acknowledge them, that they are not
on a par with Scripture.
--
John Symons
jsy...@ozemail.com.au
Bartholomew Siemens
>Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
>church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
>other books of the bible!
Actually most early church leaders did not consider them sacred
Scripture. I am unfortunately going from memory, so IMHO it wasn't
until after Martin Luther formatted the first Protestant canon--and
totally rejected the Apocrhypha' usefulness--that RC's brought the
Apocrypha into the canon.
Reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha would be historicity of both facts
and authorship and acceptance. Those books in the Apocrypha fail on
all counts.
Judaism before us had accepted books--of which the Old Testament is
comprised. They rejected those parts of the Apocrypha that were
written in the time before Christ. Christianity has its roots in
Judaism and accepted the same books.
Books in the Apocrypha also directly contradict teaching in the canon.
BTW, I'm not really up to a discussion of *apparent* contradictions in
the canon.
All of the above is not to say that the Apocrypha is not a worthy
reference material, even in serious theological study. If anyone needs
more proof of what I'm saying, please grace me with a week to gather
it together.
Your servant
Tracy Neibel
On Fri, 17 Mar 1995 csan...@alfalfa.csci.csc.com wrote:
>
> Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
> church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
> other books of the bible!
From my understanding, when Martin Luther was making his
translation of the Holy Scriptures, he used Hebrew documents which did
not contain the books of the Old Testament which in Protestant tradition
are called Apocrypha, and in Catholic tradition are called
Deuterocanonical. The Deuterocanonical books are to be found in the
Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the early
Church and especially used by St. Jerome in his translation of the
Scriptures into Latin, the Latin Vulgate.
When Martin Luther did not include the books within his Old
Testament, he did place them as an "appendix" between the Old and New
Testaments, and later translations placed them at the end of the
Scriptures. The original King James Version also had the
deuterocanonical books included, yet other versions deleted them again.
Martin Luther also had wanted to delete the epistle of James,
Revelations, Hebrews, and 1 and 3 John, and it is lucky for our
Protestant brethren that he did not take this route for they would then
REALLY be missing out on God's Word.
I think that, in general, most Protestants do not actively reject
the deuterocanonical books. Most Protestants do not even realize that
they have books missing from their Bibles which have been considered
inspired by God since the first century of Christianity, for the first
1500 years, and still considered inspired by the Catholic Church today.
I remember quite vividly when I, as a Protestant, first encountered a
Catholic who read to me from the book of Maccabees and I said,
"Maccabees! What is Maccabees?!!" I told my friend that someone had
added to his Bible; he told me that someone had taken away from mine! It
began a long search for answers and I have concluded that he was right.
Tracy Neibel
Charles R.L. Power
>Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
>church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
>other books of the bible!
First, they're not found in any original Hebrew version; second, the
Jews, who should have some authority on that part of the Bible, reject
them as Scripture.
BTW, the Eastern Orthodox churches accept rather more Scripture than do
the Roman Catholics--check out a (New) Revised Standard Version with
Apocrypha to see what I mean.
Where would you draw the line? Deuterocanonicals, meaning that
"apocrypha" accepted by the R.C. church? What about the various Gospels
outside the four standards? See THE COMPLETE GOSPELS.
If you consider the Protestants strict about what they'll accept as
Scripture, consider the Samaritans, who limit theirs to the Five Books!
Bruce Hietbrink
> csan...@alfalfa.csci.csc.com@csci.csc.com (Christian Sanelli) wrote:
>
> >Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
> >church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
> >other books of the bible!
>
> Actually most early church leaders did not consider them sacred
> Scripture. I am unfortunately going from memory, so IMHO it wasn't
> until after Martin Luther formatted the first Protestant canon--and
> totally rejected the Apocrhypha' usefulness--that RC's brought the
> Apocrypha into the canon.
>
I'm no scholar on this issue, but my understanding is that there
was never an "official" canon set by the Roman Catholic church until
after Luther set the Protestant canon. I agree with what some others
said that Luther rejected the Apocrypha as being on the same level
as the Protestant canon for various reasons: these were not
traditionally thought of as the same level, Jews didn't accept
these as part of their scripture, the authorship was in question etc.
After Luther set the Protestant canon, the Roman Catholic church
decided they needed to set an "official" canon (as opposed to
the commonly accepted which they already had) and called the
Council of _________ (sorry). Part of the reason for this is
that some Catholic traditions (for example, Prayers for the dead,
Limbo) were best supported by passages from the Apocrypha. So
there was a bit of politics going on here. In any event, there
are arguments on both sides of whether or not these ought to be
included, but even if you include them most people don't put
these on the same level as, say, John, or Luke, or Genesis. They
get ignored a lot. But, on the other hand, so do Habukuk (sp? it's
late) and others of the minor prophets.
Here's my question: Why in the world is Philemon canonical? So
it was written by Paul, but most of it is just a personal letter.
There's not a lot of meat here and what there is is covered in
other letters. Okay, without it we might not know as much about
the fate of that one slave (can't remember his name, like I
said, it's late), but I don't think that that would shake my
faith much.
Second question: When recently reading through 1 Chronicles,
I saw a note that there were two missing letters to that church.
Plus in other places Paul refers to other letters he had
written. My question is, what if we were to find these letters (and
could actually authenticate them)? Would they become canon? Was
their loss just an accident of history? Or do we argue that God
has kept his Word safe and those things that He wanted to survive,
did survive?
Just rambling,
Bruce Hietbrink
EgwEimi
up to and including the Catholic Church (and others) of
today.
In 65 at a 'council' in Jerusalem, and formally in c.90
at a council in Jamnia (Yamnia), the Palestinian Jews
set a terminus on books which could be admitted to
the canon. The decision was that any book written from
the time of Sirach (Ben Sira, Ecclesiasticus) onward
(132 BCE) was not to be considered canonical. Moreover
and specifically, the books of the Christians (called 'heretics')
were not to be included. This meant that they could not
be read in the synagogue. Christians and Jews made
some nasty statements about one another during the
late 1st through the second centuries.
Christians kept what they had been using, including the
deuterocanonical OT books and, in some locations, other
books as well. When Jerome was preparing what was
to become the definitive Latin translation, the Vulgate,
he discovered that certain books in use by the Church
were not found in his day in Hebrew and were not used
by Jews of his day. (Actually a MS of Sirach exists in
Hebrew, but it wasn't known to Jerome.) These books
were separated out from the rest of the books, which had
been containted in the Septuagint (Greek) for years.
Martin Luther was translating from the Vulgate, and he
followed Jerome's policy. He wished to see some or
all of these excluded, but he also had strong things to
say about James, and voiced a few objections to
Revelation. The KJV of 1611 followed Luther and every-
one else since Jerome who had separated the Apocrypha
from the other books.
However, later editions of the KJV, and most Protestant
Bibles to this day omit the books. These books have
not undergone as close a scrutiny as the rest of those
written before Jesus. Some of them are deliberate works
of fiction (Judith, Tobit). Some are histories, some are
proverbs. All of them are useful for reading.
Frank Daniels
(I am not Catholic)
Richard Cheung
>Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
>church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
>other books of the bible!
Let me quote the following from the book Radio Replies Second Volume,
Rev. Dr. Lesile Rumble (TAN) p117
"The Books of the Old Testament contained in the Catholic Canon are
those contained in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew
Bible - a translation made at Alexandria, in Egypt, by the Jews
residing there. This translation was made during the three centuries
before the birth of Christ. The Jews, even of Palestine, accepted
the Septuagint Canon, or list of Books, and our Lord Himself used it
in conversing with them. The Jews began to deny its authenticity only
about a century after Christ because they cound not resist the arguments
drawn from it and used against them by the Christians. They therefore
said that it was a bad translation; that it did not agree with the
Hebrew text; and they rejected it. But the use the Jews themselves had
made it for nearly four hundred years rendered their rejection of it
too late. And their motives, of course, are evident. Their interest was
not critical, but polemical."
--
Richard Cheung <*> Los Angeles, California, USA <*> rich...@netcom.com
WWW: http://www.hup.ucla.edu/homepages/richardc.html ._o<O.O>o_.
Richard Cheung
>Modern Christians, *including* the Catholic Church, who uses these books
>most, also make a clear distinction between them and the canonical
>writings. The Apocrypha are included as "deutero-canonical" material -
>that is, a step below the rest. While I don't personally agree with giving
>them any sort of authority like that of Scripture, (yes, I'm a protestant)
>it is clear even among those that do acknowledge them, that they are not
>on a par with Scripture.
>--
>John Symons
>jsy...@ozemail.com.au
As a Catholic, I *never* hear of the Catholic Church "make a clear
distinction between" the Apocrypha and the canonical writings.
I am not sure where you get this idea from?
The apocrypha is used equally with other books in the Catholic Church.
andrew david gross
Charles R.L. Power <kar...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>csan...@alfalfa.csci.csc.com@csci.csc.com (Christian Sanelli) writes:
>
>>Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
>>church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
>>other books of the bible!
>
>First, they're not found in any original Hebrew version; second, the
>Jews, who should have some authority on that part of the Bible, reject
>them as Scripture.
Well, these sort of fit hand-in-hand. Once the Jews decided these books
were not canonical, they no longer bothered preserving the Hebrew
originals. I mean, these things weren't written on stone tablets, and so
once people stopped making the efforts to preserve the Hebrew originals,
they were done for.
On the other hand, Hebrew originals for many of these books *have* in fact
been found at Qumran.
andrew
Kevin Dyer
>From: csan...@alfalfa.csci.csc.com@csci.csc.com (Christian Sanelli)
>Subject: Why was Apocrypha rejected?
>Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 20:51:01 GMT
>Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
>church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
>other books of the bible!
> \\|//
> (O-O)
> ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo------
>/ Christian G. Sanelli (csan...@csci.csc.com) \
>| Programmer / Analyst Residence: |
>| CSC Communications Industry Services 607 E. White St. # C35 |
>| TRIS Division Champaign, IL 61820 |
>\ (217) 351-8508 ext. 2126 (217) 355-3910 /
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Apocrypha was faulty primarily in the following areas:
1) the apocrypha was not written by an Apostle or close associate of an
Apostle. This was one of the tests of canonicity.
2) the New Testament was completed (says the manuscript evidence) by 95AD, and
the apocrypha clearly (CLEARLY) was/were not completed until mid to late 2nd
Century-- which makes eyewitness accounts impossible.
3) The fact is "most early Christians" did NOT consider them scripture at all.
A clear reading of anyone from Athanatius, Justin Martyr, Eusebius and many
others shows that all considered them spurious as far as being the actual
authors they claimed to be. In fact, that is why the majority of Apocrypha
have been called the Pseudopigrapha, or of "False Authorship."
4) Only after the Sixth century did the Roman Catholic church actually
consider them "Deuterocanonical" meaning "Beside or Second Scripture" and
technically, this merely means they are "Edifying Reading."
This is a short expose of some facts but it would do anyone interested in the
subject to read scholars from those days, and church history is very clear on
the matter.
Paul Harvey
> Let me quote the following from the book Radio Replies Second Volume,
> Rev. Dr. Lesile Rumble (TAN) p117
> "The Books of the Old Testament contained in the Catholic Canon are
> those contained in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew
> Bible
This is false. The Roman Catholic Canon of Trent (1546) includes:
Additional Esther, Additional Daniel, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah,
Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, 1-2 Maccabees. In
addition, 1-2 Esdras (Roman Catholic 3-4 Esdras) and Prayer of Manasseh,
though rejected at Trent, are included in all Roman Catholic Bibles,
"least they be lost." Sometimes the Epistle to the Laodiceans is also
included in like fashion. Technically, there is no such thing as an
official canon of the Septuagint, however, it is generally said to
contain: Additional Esther, Additional Daniel, Baruch, Epistle of
Jeremiah, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras (Greek Esdras A), Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of
Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Prayer of Manasseh, 1-4 Maccabees, Psalms of
Solomon. The Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 accepts all these,
though Additional Esther, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras,
Prayer of Manasseh, 4 Maccabees and Psalms of Solomon do not have full
canonical status though present in Greek Bibles.
> - a translation made at Alexandria, in Egypt, by the Jews
> residing there.
For the Torah (Pentateuch - First Five Books).
> This translation was made during the three centuries
> before the birth of Christ. The Jews, even of Palestine, accepted
> the Septuagint Canon,
That's false. Not to mention that there really is no such thing as
"Septuagint Canon" particularly prior to the codex.
> or list of Books, and our Lord Himself used it
> in conversing with them.
Actually, it looks like only "Law and Prophets" was standard for Jesus,
Paul, etc. In addition, need I point it out, the Law and Prophets were
more than just a list of books used by Jesus and Paul to converse to the
Jews - in fact the Law and Prophets meant a great deal more to Jesus and
Paul than they do to many modern "Christians." Which should cause one to
think.
> The Jews began to deny its authenticity only
> about a century after Christ because they cound not resist the arguments
> drawn from it and used against them by the Christians.
Absurd.
> They therefore
> said that it was a bad translation; that it did not agree with the
> Hebrew text; and they rejected it.
Why would they accept a translation, any translation, in place of the
originals?
> But the use the Jews themselves had
> made it for nearly four hundred years rendered their rejection of it
> too late.
This ignores Qumran. It also ignores Aramaic translations.
> And their motives, of course, are evident. Their interest was
> not critical, but polemical."
Then why did Jerome and the Protestants advocate a return to the
originals? Had they caught the "Jewish Disease"?
nobody
>
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 1995 csan...@alfalfa.csci.csc.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
> > church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
> > other books of the bible!
>
>
Good question, glad to see this raised!
[snip]
> I think that, in general, most Protestants do not actively reject
> the deuterocanonical books. Most Protestants do not even realize that
> they have books missing from their Bibles which have been considered
> inspired by God since the first century of Christianity, for the first
> 1500 years, and still considered inspired by the Catholic Church today.
I was shocked to say the least to learn of the deletion of so much
relevant matter which is, at the *least* necessary for a historical
perspective. I was given a paperbound book a while back called
the Lost Books of Eden, which has quite a few things in it which are
not seen in the traditional Apochrypa. Hope some day to be able to write a
studied blurb on them.
I remember quite vividly when I, as a Protestant, first encountered a
> Catholic who read to me from the book of Maccabees and I said,
> "Maccabees! What is Maccabees?!!" I told my friend that someone had
> added to his Bible; he told me that someone had taken away from mine! It
> began a long search for answers and I have concluded that he was right.
>
>
The search for Truth is a lifelong thing to be sure. Often as I listen
to the howling confusion on the air and ethernet, I marvel at the varied
materials available to the searching hearts of the world. I suppose that
I have developed a odd perspective, but one I will share with you all.
My approach is something like this, if most folks believe it, it is
very likely a fable. The greater the din condemning any given point of
view, the greater the probability that it approaches a Truth most might
prefer not to hear. Maybe I'm a contrarian, but it seems to bear out
over time.
My thoughts... certainly not gospel, and subject to revision in light
of Truth discovered.
> Tracy Neibel
>
David M. Williams
: Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
: church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
: other books of the bible!
I don't find this to be the case.
Regardless, the differences between the Canonical books and those in the
Apocrypha are markedly different. the Canonical books claim inspiration.
They are inerrant. The Holy Spirit was the clear author.
Yet when we look at the Apocrypha, what do we see?
"So ends the episode of Nicanor, and . . . . I shall bring my own work to an
end here too. If it is well composed and to the point, that is what I wanted.
If it is trashy and mediocre, that is all I could manage." II Macabees 15:37-38
"It was the twelfth year of Nebuchadnezzar who reigned over the Assyrians in
the great city of Nineveh." Judith 1:1
For those who don't know, Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon, and was never
titled "King of Assyria", and Nineveh was not his capital city.
The Apocrypha is full of quotes like these two. None of its books are worthy
of the Canon of Scripture.
--
.////. .// David M. Williams da...@maths.newcastle.edu.au
o:::::::::/// System Manager, University of Newcastle
>::::::::::\\\ " Amazing love! How could it be
'\\\\\' \\ that thou oh God shouldst die for me!"
Paula Mc Cormick
McDowell, J. _A_Ready_Defense_. p. 39-41
Apocrypha: The term, from the Greek word apokruphos, means "hidden or
concealed."
In the fourth centry Jerome was the first to call these writting "Apocrypha."
The Apocrypha consists of the books that were added to the Old Testament by
the Roman Catholic church but that Protestants say are not canonical.
[...]
WHY NOT CANONICAL?
_Unger's_Bible_Dictionary_ gives reasons for the exclusion of these
writtings:
"They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachromisms.
"They teach docrines which are false and foster practices which are at
variance with inspired Scripture.
"They resot to literary types and display an arificiality of subject
matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.
"They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture thier
divine character, such as prophectic power and poetic and religious
feeling."
HISTORICAL TESTIMONY OF THEIR EXCLUSION
Geisler and Nix give a succesion of ten testimonies of antiquity against
accepting the Apocrypha:
1. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC - AD 40), quoted the Old
Testament prolifically and even recognized the threefold division, but he
never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
2. Josephus (AD 30 - 100), Jewish historian, explcitly excludes the
Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testamnet as 22. Neither does he
cripture.
3. Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha
although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of
the canonical books of the Old Testament.
4. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (AD 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.
5. No canon or council of the Christian church for the first four centuries
recoginized the Apocrypha as inspired.
6. Many of the great fathers of the earlt church spoke out against the
Apocrypha, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius.
7. Jerome (340-420), the great scholar and translator of the Vulgate,
rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. [...]
8. Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected
the Apocrypha.
9. Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
10. Not until AD 1546, in a political action at the Counter Reformation
Council of Trent, did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status
by the Roman Catholic Church.
[...]
hope this helps.
Paula
Linh Le
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Richard Cheung wrote:
> As a Catholic, I *never* hear of the Catholic Church "make a clear
> distinction between" the Apocrypha and the canonical writings.
> I am not sure where you get this idea from?
>
> The apocrypha is used equally with other books in the Catholic Church.
>
> --
> Richard Cheung <*> Los Angeles, California, USA <*> rich...@netcom.com
> WWW: http://www.hup.ucla.edu/homepages/richardc.html ._o<O.O>o_.
>
I think it's time we define what the term apocrypha applies to. Which
books are we talking about here? There are books that the Catholic
Church terms apocrypha, but the list happens to be shorter than what
Protestants include, and the Eastern Orthodox's list is even shorter, as
their cannon is longer than both Catholic and Protestant.
In Christ,
Linh Le
Nichael Cramer
csan...@alfalfa.csci.csc.com@csci.csc.com (Christian Sanelli) writes:
>Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
>church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
>other books of the bible!
First, they're not found in any original Hebrew version; second, the
Jews, who should have some authority on that part of the Bible, reject
them as Scripture.
Actually Hebrew versions of a number of the deuterocanonical books
turned up at Qumran: Sirach, Tobit and Epistle of Jeremiah, to name
three (see Fitzmyer's _101 Questions_, pg 14).
(In fact, I seem to recall reading somewhere that we now have Hebrew
fragments of the majority of the Deuterocanonicals, but I don't
remember the source. Anyone?)
But more to the point, perhaps the correct question to ask here is
Why were the Deuterocanonicals ever accepted by anyone, and here the
answer is clear: i.e. they were part of the Septuagint (i.e the
"standard" Greek translation of the OT). And those branches of
Christianity that came to depend on the Septuagint --primarily via the
Vulgate-- simply accepted this as given.
--
Nichael
ncr...@bbn.com
Andrew Woode
> Christians always used the deuterocanonical books,
> up to and including the Catholic Church (and others) of
> today.
>
> In 65 at a 'council' in Jerusalem, and formally in c.90
> at a council in Jamnia (Yamnia), the Palestinian Jews
> set a terminus on books which could be admitted to
> the canon.
I was under the impression that this idea had been discredited. Modern
references to the Jewish discussions of this period tend to focus on
reported disagreements over which
books "defiled the hands" (probably because of being holy).
It should also be noted that these disagreements focused on a few books
from the third section of the Hebrew canon, the "Writings" (the section
that includes Ps, Prov., Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lam., Ecclesiastes,
Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles). The first two sections (Law
and Prophets were already secure.
> Christians kept what they had been using, including the
> deuterocanonical OT books and, in some locations, other
> books as well. When Jerome was preparing what was
> to become the definitive Latin translation, the Vulgate,
> he discovered that certain books in use by the Church
> were not found in his day in Hebrew and were not used
> by Jews of his day. (Actually a MS of Sirach exists in
> Hebrew, but it wasn't known to Jerome.) These books
> were separated out from the rest of the books, which had
> been containted in the Septuagint (Greek) for years.
>
This is misleading. Jerome certainly would have liked to exclude the books
not found in the Hebrew canon (which by
his time was firmly established). But other important figures
disagreed, and the Catholics continued using the fuller canon
throughout the middle ages, usually without a hint of any
"second-class" status. And in Catholic Bibles of all periods, the
"apocryphal" books are mixed in with those derived from Hebrew as though
there were no important distinction between them. Admittedly, before the
Council of Trent, Catholics could did have the theoretical option of
rejecting the books in question (a course which is no longer officially
open to them).
> Martin Luther was translating from the Vulgate, and he
> followed Jerome's policy. He wished to see some or
> all of these excluded, but he also had strong things to
> say about James, and voiced a few objections to
> Revelation. The KJV of 1611 followed Luther and every-
> one else since Jerome who had separated the Apocrypha
> from the other books.
Luther was definitely NOT translating from the Vulgate, but from the
original tongues. That was why his work was controversial: contrary to
popular belief, translations into German were not a novelty in his day.
However, previous translations HAD been done from the Vulgate, and were
usually
literal enough to allow them to be used to support the standard
interpretations of the Latin text. Luther's translations made that
impossible and were thus an integral part of his doctrinal challenge to
Catholicism. That said, he would have found backing in Jerome's views for
his eventual separation of the Apocrypha from the main canon of the OT.
> Frank Daniels
> (I am not Catholic)
--
Andrew Woode, Queens' College, Cambridge, ac...@phx.cam.ac.uk
Us[enet] acostumatz escuza fals parlar. (N'Ath de Mons)
Helmut Richter
>Martin Luther was translating from the Vulgate, and he
>followed Jerome's policy. He wished to see some or
>all of these excluded, but he also had strong things to
>say about James, and voiced a few objections to
>Revelation.
Luther did not translate from the Vulgate but from the original Hebrew
and Greek. He included the apocrypha as "books that are not considered
equivalent to the holy Scripture, yet are useful and good to read"
["Buecher, so der heiligen Schrift nicht gleich gehalten, doch
nuetzlich und gut zu lesen sind"]. Of course, he also did not remove
any Scripture, not even James whom he disliked.
For his esteem of the original languages, he coined a nice
aphorism:
The Hebrews drink from the spring, the Greeks from the brooks
that flow from the spring, but the Latins from the puddles.
Helmut
Paul Harvey
> McDowell, J. _A_Ready_Defense_. p. 39-41
McDowell doesn't know what he's talking about. He's simply spreading
propaganda. Reader beware. Discover your local library - most carry a
full selection of Christianica.
> The Apocrypha consists of the books that were added to the Old Testament by
> the Roman Catholic church but that Protestants say are not canonical.
That's simply a false statement.
> WHY NOT CANONICAL?
This question is not easily answered. Unless you prefer to buy your
theology from snake oil salesmen.
> HISTORICAL TESTIMONY OF THEIR EXCLUSION
> Geisler and Nix give a succesion of ten testimonies of antiquity against
> accepting the Apocrypha:
> 1. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC - AD 40), quoted the Old
> Testament prolifically and even recognized the threefold division, but he
> never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
It's not at all clear Philo recognized the threefold TNK. In fact, it's
not clear what Philo thought was "inspired" or even if he understood
that term as moderns do. In any case, Philo tried to merge Jewish and
Greek philosophy, which puts him outside of Judaism and Christianity
(perhaps the later is more a "should").
> 2. Josephus (AD 30 - 100), Jewish historian, explcitly excludes the
> Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testamnet as 22. Neither
> does he cripture.
This is bogus. Josephus only says "22 books" that doesn't mean he didn't
include some of the Apocrypha (in a Protestant sense) in his canon since
some of them are merged into the TNK and we have other examples of just
how to count 22 and include some Apocrypha. However, *probably*,
Josephus was refering to TNK (i.e. the Jewish Bible). He perhaps didn't
know all the names, otherwise why didn't he record them? Also you have
to be careful with what you do with Josephus. His writings are actually
apologetica to Rome for the Jewish Revolt.
> 3. Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha
> although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of
> the canonical books of the Old Testament.
This is false. Most quotes are of the Torah and Prophets (i.e. "Law and
Prophets"). Jude clearly quotes and cites Enoch. There are others.
> 4. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (AD 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.
This concept (the so-called Council of Jamnia) has been discredited.
However, the Masora (Jewish Bible) was certainly standardized in
consonantal form around 100ce. At this point, the majority of Christians
used Greek while the majority of Jews used Hebrew and Aramaic. There was
actually very little overlap between the two groups. [The obvious
exception was of course Syrian Christianity.]
> 5. No canon or council of the Christian church for the first four centuries
> recoginized the Apocrypha as inspired.
That's false. See my Canon list for details. Or see your library under
Augustine, for example.
> 6. Many of the great fathers of the earlt church spoke out against the
> Apocrypha, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius.
False. Origen approved the Epistle of Jeremiah specifically and probably
the additions to Daniel and Esdras and perhaps 1 Maccabees. Cyril of
Jerusalem approved Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah specifically and
also probably the additions to Daniel and Esdras. Athanasius approved
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah specifically and probably also Psalm
151 and Esdras and had a DeuteroCanon of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach,
Didache and Hermas.
> 7. Jerome (340-420), the great scholar and translator of the Vulgate,
> rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. [...]
He didn't "reject" them - perhaps under pressure. However, he did
dispute them since they were not part of the Jewish Bible.
> 8. Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected
> the Apocrypha.
Many? Maybe some. Even Trent's vote wasn't unanimous.
> 9. Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
And Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelations. ...
> 10. Not until AD 1546, in a political action at the Counter Reformation
> Council of Trent, did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status
> by the Roman Catholic Church.
That's correct, more or less.
Paul Harvey
> Regardless, the differences between the Canonical books and those in the
> Apocrypha are markedly different. the Canonical books claim inspiration.
> They are inerrant. The Holy Spirit was the clear author.
> Yet when we look at the Apocrypha, what do we see?
This claim won't stand the light of day. Check your Bible or see library
for details.
Paul Harvey
> The Apocrypha was faulty primarily in the following areas:
> 1) the apocrypha was not written by an Apostle or close associate of an
> Apostle. This was one of the tests of canonicity.
This is absurd. The 27 book NT has problems with this claim!
> 2) the New Testament was completed (says the manuscript evidence) by 95AD,
False.
> and
> the apocrypha clearly (CLEARLY) was/were not completed until mid to late 2nd
> Century--
False.
> which makes eyewitness accounts impossible.
Eyewitness? Again, check 27 book NT.
> 3)The fact is "most early Christians" did NOT consider them scripture at all.
False.
> A clear reading of anyone from Athanatius, Justin Martyr, Eusebius and many
> others shows that all considered them spurious as far as being the actual
> authors they claimed to be.
False. Again, check 27 book NT.
> In fact, that is why the majority of Apocrypha
> have been called the Pseudopigrapha, or of "False Authorship."
> 4) Only after the Sixth century did the Roman Catholic church actually
> consider them "Deuterocanonical" meaning "Beside or Second Scripture" and
> technically, this merely means they are "Edifying Reading."
False.
> This is a short expose of some facts but it would do anyone interested in the
> subject to read scholars from those days, and church history is very clear on
> the matter.
Indeed. See library for details.
Scott McMullen H3-264
John> In article <D5Lr9...@spss.com>,
John> csan...@alfalfa.csci.csc.com@csci.csc.com (Christian Sanelli) wrote:
> Why do Protestants reject the Apocrypha? Most early Christians and
> church leaders considered them sacred Scripture, JUST as sacred as the
> other books of the bible!
John> But this is not entirely true! Many early Christians found them helpful
John> reading, it is true, but it is clear that they made a distinction between
John> this and inspired Scripture. Various lists have been dug up, but
John> generally, Christians followed (for the Old Testament books at least) the
John> canonical lists set by the Jews for their Scriptures, and these are the
John> books we currently have in our Old Testament.
John> Modern Christians, *including* the Catholic Church, who uses these books
John> most, also make a clear distinction between them and the canonical
John> writings. The Apocrypha are included as "deutero-canonical" material -
John> that is, a step below the rest. While I don't personally agree with giving
John> them any sort of authority like that of Scripture, (yes, I'm a protestant)
John> it is clear even among those that do acknowledge them, that they are not
John> on a par with Scripture.
I believe the term 'deutero-canonical' refers to the fact that these
writings were accepted as canon at a later time than the
'proto-canonical' books of the canon ("second", not
"secondary"). According to my NEB, which includes the Apocrypha,
Catholics were admonished by the Council of Trent (1546), to receive
the Apocryphal books "with equal devotion and reverence".
These books were also included in the original King James Version of
1611 and in Luther's German translation (1534). In Luther's
translation, they were placed between the testaments. (Couldn't tell
you about the KJV, help anyone?) The appendix in my RSV states that
these early Protestant translations were not accepted as part of the
Hebrew or Protestant canons, but that they were nonetheless considered
"useful and good to read".
They were rejected by the Puritans because they do not appear in any
Hebrew version of scripture. At their insistence, they were deleted
from later versions of the KJV.
Scott
--
*****************************************************************
Scott A. McMullen
Motorola High Performance Embedded Systems Division
Semiconductor Product Sector
6501 William Cannon Drive West MS OE38
Austin, Texas 78735-8598
```
/o o\
( > )
-^^^-------^^^---
audentes fortuna juvat
(512) 891-8671
scott_m...@email.sps.mot.com
*****************************************************************
fahrvergnunez
> The Apocrypha was faulty primarily in the following areas:
>
> 1) the apocrypha was not written by an Apostle or close associate of an
> Apostle. This was one of the tests of canonicity.
Neither was the rest of the Old Testament. What's your point?
>2) the New Testament was completed (says the manuscript evidence) by 95AD, and
>the apocrypha clearly (CLEARLY) was/were not completed until mid to late 2nd
>Century-- which makes eyewitness accounts impossible.
Simply False. The DeuteroCanonical books were written before the time of
Christ. You may want to check the commentary in some Bibles (The New Jerusalem
Bible comes to mind) and the works of scholars to verify this.
>3) The fact is "most early Christians" did NOT consider them scripture at all.
> A clear reading of anyone from Athanatius, Justin Martyr, Eusebius and many
> others shows that all considered them spurious as far as being the actual
> authors they claimed to be. In fact, that is why the majority of Apocrypha
> have been called the Pseudopigrapha, or of "False Authorship."
I don't have them with me, but I can provide quotes from the early father
from those books.
> 4) Only after the Sixth century did the Roman Catholic church actually
> consider them "Deuterocanonical" meaning "Beside or Second Scripture" and
> technically, this merely means they are "Edifying Reading."
Incorrect. We find regional councils in the third and fourth centuries
approving most of the deuterocanonical books. Specifically, Hippo and
Carthage.
> This is a short expose of some facts but it would do anyone interested in the
> subject to read scholars from those days, and church history is very clear on
> the matter.
Indeed it is. Pity you haven't read it.
Pax,
-Lou
e-mail lnu...@stevens-tech.edu
Nichael Cramer
In article dyer...@dukemc.mc.duke.edu (Kevin Dyer) writes:
> The Apocrypha was faulty primarily in the following areas:
>2) the New Testament was completed (says the manuscript evidence) by 95AD, and
>the apocrypha clearly (CLEARLY) was/were not completed until mid to late 2nd
>Century-- which makes eyewitness accounts impossible.
Simply False. The DeuteroCanonical books were written before the time of
Christ. You may want to check the commentary in some Bibles (The New Jerusalem
Bible comes to mind) and the works of scholars to verify this.
Moreover, fragments from the Dueterocanonicals have been found at
Qumran.
>3) The fact is "most early Christians" did NOT consider them scripture at all.
> A clear reading of anyone from Athanatius, Justin Martyr, Eusebius and many
> others shows that all considered them spurious as far as being the actual
> authors they claimed to be. In fact, that is why the majority of Apocrypha
> have been called the Pseudopigrapha, or of "False Authorship."
I don't have them with me, but I can provide quotes from the early father
from those books.
Furthermore --and the important point here-- the Dueterocanonicals
were part of the Septuagint. And as the Septuagint was the "official"
version of the OT for "most early Christians" (at least "most early
hellenistic/non-Jewish early Christians") it stands to reason that the
DTs _were_ in fact considered scripture by most of them.
> 1) the apocrypha was not written by an Apostle or close associate of an
> Apostle. This was one of the tests of canonicity.
Neither was the rest of the Old Testament. What's your point?
Quite right. This seems to be a point of some confusion here. We're
not talking about NT books here, guys.
--
Nichael
ncr...@bbn.com
Gerry Palo
I just heard a lecture that touched on this subject, at least that of the
Old Testament Apocrypha. According to the lecturer, the Old Testament
Apocrypha were destroyed by the Sanhedrin sometime around the time of
Christ. This had to do with the conflicts between the hellenist and
anti-hellenist factions. They were never regarded as being on the same
level as the Tanakh. One copy, at least, was preserved and found its way
to northern Africa and ultimately to the hands of St. Jerome, who
translated it. It is thanks to Jerome that we still have the history of
the Maccabean wars, for example, for the only account of them is in the
books of Macabbees.
I think this is one reason why the Catholic Church, and also the Church of
England, includes the Old Testament Apocryha as a kind of adjunct to the
canonical scriptures, and conversely many Rabbis hold them at arm's
length, and also the Hannukah festival, which is based on a miraculous
incident during the wars of Macabbees. This also has to do with the
problematical nature of Judas Macabbeus himself. He was neither of kingly
nor priestly blood, and no prophet. He was basically a modern military
genius, more or less the inventor of guerilla warfare. Also, though the
Macabbees succeeded in ejecting the Selucids, in order to secure their
situation, they called in an ally to help. Unfortunately it was the
Romans, and the situation under them, as we know, became worse than it had
been before.
But I digress. It is interesting that both the Tanakh and the canonical
Old Testament are established by their respective religious authorities to
end at about the year 450 BCE. The Apocrypha fall just into the centuries
following that. It is as if, as far as written scriptures are concerned,
a great spiritual silence fell and lasted for a half century. Then, from
the Christian side, the veil of silence is lifted, and the New Testament
books appear and are, around the second century, gathered into the
canonical New Testament we know today. And the Old Testament, with the
Apocrypha appended, is also embraced by the Church. And it is also
interesting that these important books of Jewish history were preserved
for Jews as well as Christians by St. Jerome.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
John G Suhayda
writes:
|>
|> Luther did not translate from the Vulgate but from the original Hebrew
|> and Greek.
|> For his esteem of the original languages, he coined a nice
|> aphorism:
|>
|> The Hebrews drink from the spring, the Greeks from the brooks
|> that flow from the spring, but the Latins from the puddles.
The problem with this quote is that it equates the language with the translators.
This is incorrect with regards to the Septuagint, which was translated into Greek
not by "Greeks" but by bilingual Jews. So why should it be any less a drink from
the "spring"?
Deacon John Suhayda
Holy Taxiarchs - St. Haralambos Greek Orthodox Church
Niles, Illinois USA