Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books

[Fish and Bread]

I was reading the Book of Tobit today and found it very inspiring and Godly. I think it could be considered to tell us a great deal about God's plan for us in the way of marriage and so forth. It's a very hopeful tale for those of us who sometimes despair of finding a spouse, that perhaps God selected one for us before we were even born. Parts of it are very enlightening in other ways, and it makes for an entertaining tale as well.

Yet, many churches and denominations do not recognize this book. I'd never given overmuch thought to the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books before, but now it makes me wonder....

I've heard that originally Martin Luther removed the books because they were said to have been solely products of the Greek Jewish community and not of the Israeli Jewish community, and were not included in the then-modern Jewish canon. Five centuries or so later, do we have any updated scholarship on that? Is there any evidence that these scriptures may have been written in Israel itself or any additional evidence that they may not have been? Do any of you have any personal testimony as to these scripture's merit and worth from your own prayer or experiences?

John

[PaladinValer]

St. Augustine listed the canon in his work, On Christian Teaching. The canon included all the Deuterocanon.

[TomUK]

Sadly many Christians won't have even heard of Tobit. I don't believe it to be authoritative but is certainly far more profitable than most of the tat you find in Christian bookshops nowadays.

[ps139]

The real question, IMO, is were they in the Bible that Jesus used? Everything I've seen points to "yes."

[Fish and Bread]

The real question, IMO, is were they in the Bible that Jesus used? Everything I've seen points to "yes."

What type of evidence have you seen that points towards them being in the collection of scripture Jesus used in 1st century Israel? That's kind of at the heart of this issue, I think. If I recall correctly, Luther's primary point was supposed to have been that these were scriptures written by Jewish expatriots living in Greece and not authentic Israeli Hebrew scriptures that Jesus would have used during his earthly life. If it could proven that they were in wide spread usage in Israel at the time of the Messiah, I think that would go a long way towards settling the original points at issue when they were excluded from the Protestant canon.

John

[Colabomb]

The real question, IMO, is were they in the Bible that Jesus used? Everything I've seen points to "yes."
Brother I mean no offense, please don't take this wrong.

3 Maccabees and a 151st Psalm were also included in the Septuagint. Why doesn't The Roman Catholic Church Accept them.

I believe that the Deuterocanon is Scripture, I am just having trouble figuring out which books.....

[PaladinValer]

St. Augustine perhaps never heard of 3rd Maccabees?

And 151 would have been included with the rest of the Psalms.

[ps139]

What type of evidence have you seen that points towards them being in the collection of scripture Jesus used in 1st century Israel? That's kind of at the heart of this issue, I think. If I recall correctly, Luther's primary point was supposed to have been that these were scriptures written by Jewish expatriots living in Greece and not authentic Israeli Hebrew scriptures that Jesus would have used during his earthly life. If it could proven that they were in wide spread usage in Israel at the time of the Messiah, I think that would go a long way towards settling the original points at issue when they were excluded from the Protestant canon.
Well, we know that the Jews did not decide to get rid of them until AFTER Christ, and after they'd been expelled from Jerusalem. The reasoning is that they saw their temple was destroyed and they were in exile...again... and they said "what did we do this time?" In the past, their punishments had been due to close associations with the pagans, and so they thought it must be the same case this time. (Deicide did not factor into their minds). So, they threw out Scripture written in Greek - by the Hellenic, or perhaps "too pagan" Jews.
To make a long story short, the fact that they rejected it after Christ tells me that it was there at the time of Christ.


Brother I mean no offense, please don't take this wrong.

3 Maccabees and a 151st Psalm were also included in the Septuagint. Why doesn't The Roman Catholic Church Accept them.

I believe that the Deuterocanon is Scripture, I am just having trouble figuring out which books.....

Colabomb, are you positive they were in the Septuagint? I know some Orthodox Churches accept them, but does that mean they were in the Septuagint? This is an honest question I'm not trying to debate or anything.
My honest answer is that I have no idea why Catholics do not hold them as inspired.. It came to me as a surprise when I found this out, and its one of those things I need to research more before I can even possibly answer.

[PaladinValer]

Here's a good list of three famous ancient Septuagints (Codexes Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus) as well as Rahlf's edited Septugaint, and what books they include: http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/sp_books.html

Some interesting things that I saw:

-None of them have 2 Esdras (Called 3 Esdras in the Greek and called 4-6 Ezra in the Vulgate), though the EOC considers it canonical and the Protestants put it in their Apocrypha. Perhaps an EO who is reading this might explain?
-Both Alexandriunus and Vaticanus contain 1 Esdras. The fact that Vaticanus would have it should, IMO, make it that the VCC should consider it canonical.
-All three had Psalm 151 in them
-Alexandrinus is the only one to contain Prayer of Manasseh, which is oddly enough included in the Protestant Apocrypha even though the VCC doesn't consider it canonical.
-Vaticanus is missing all four Maccabees (Sinaiticus has the first two but Alexandrinus has all four, though the EO doesn't really consider the fourth to be canonical, as it is in their appendex; interestingly enough, the Oriental Orthodox also consider 3 Maccabees to be canonical too), the Odes (which does include the Prayer of Manasseh, though if memory serves me right, this also appeared in the original book of Chronicals[?]), and the truly Apocryphal Pslams of Solomon which no one considers canonical. If my memory serves me right, Vaticanus, when rediscovered, was "damaged" in some way, which could logically account for those missing books.

So of the books that the EO (and many Anglicans) accept:

-One (2 Esdras) isn't in the Septuagint

-One is found in the Vaticanus (1 Esdras)

-Two are found in both Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (1 Esdras again plus 3 Maccabees)

-Alexandrinus includes the Prayer of Manasseh

-Vaticanus could probably once contained all three canonical* Maccabeeses and the Prayer of Manasseh.

-All three contain Psalm 151

*For this one case, I'm going to simply assume 3 Maccabees is canonical to save me from typing extra.

[Zacharias]

I was reading the Book of Tobit today and found it very inspiring and Godly. I think it could be considered to tell us a great deal about God's plan for us in the way of marriage and so forth. It's a very hopeful tale for those of us who sometimes despair of finding a spouse, that perhaps God selected one for us before we were even born. Parts of it are very enlightening in other ways, and it makes for an entertaining tale as well.

Yet, many churches and denominations do not recognize this book. I'd never given overmuch thought to the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books before, but now it makes me wonder....

I've heard that originally Martin Luther removed the books because they were said to have been solely products of the Greek Jewish community and not of the Israeli Jewish community, and were not included in the then-modern Jewish canon. Five centuries or so later, do we have any updated scholarship on that? Is there any evidence that these scriptures may have been written in Israel itself or any additional evidence that they may not have been? Do any of you have any personal testimony as to these scripture's merit and worth from your own prayer or experiences?

John

I love Tobit! :cool: I personally accept the Orthodox canon. Martin Luther through out Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation along with the deuterocanon.

[ps139]

Paladin thats some excellent research you did for us!

[gtsecc]

I don't think Luther wanted to through out Tobit.

[Fish and Bread]

I don't think Luther wanted to through out Tobit.

So who took out Tobit? And why?

Thanks to everyone for their interesting comments.

Also, I was wondering what everyone feels the implications of a canon that took some time to solidy and has changed through the years are theologically. We know the early church didn't have a set canon per say and that the Gnostic gospels and others had to be banned at some point from being recited in Christian fellowship, along with the whole Revelations versus Apocylapse of St. Peter issue. We also see these select Old Testament books that are in the canon of the eastern church and not the western church or vice-versa and which are excluded from Protestant canon entirely, etc. What does this tell us, if anything, about the bible as a whole? Can we trust the canon we have today? How do we know what God intended to be canon or not canon? Do we know that God cares what is included (Within reason)? And, if he does, what is his intent behind allowing this confusion? I'd love to see more discussion on this topic.

John

[Colabomb]

I love Tobit! :cool: I personally accept the Orthodox canon. Martin Luther through out Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation along with the deuterocanon.
But that is the point, what is the Orthodox Canon, you get different lists from different Orthodox, and, which Orthodox/Catholic/Anglican is Right?

I mean we all accept the 66 Protestant books, so at least we have a common basis. It gets confusing.

As I have said, I hold that the Roman Catholic Canon is Scripture, I just don't know how far beyond the Roman Canon it goes....

[Zacharias]

But that is the point, what is the Orthodox Canon, you get different lists from different Orthodox, and, which Orthodox/Catholic/Anglican is Right?

I mean we all accept the 66 Protestant books, so at least we have a common basis. It gets confusing.

As I have said, I hold that the Roman Catholic Canon is Scripture, I just don't know how far beyond the Roman Canon it goes....

:idea: I just had a thought. Protestants accept the 66 books because all protestants unanimously agree that those are canonical. "Why accept books that might not be inspired by God, better to be safe, it won't hurt to leave those out"

The tradition accepters(Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Anglo-Catholics) unanimously agree on the Roman Catholic canon. Now I've decided that I accept the Roman Catholic canon. I'm not saying that the other books are not inspired by God, but "Why accept books that might not be inspired by God, better to be safe, it won't hurt to leave those out"


Thanks Colabomb! :clap: You sure made alot of sense! :thumbsup:

[Fish and Bread]

:idea: I just had a thought. Protestants accept the 66 books because all protestants unanimously agree that those are canonical. "Why accept books that might not be inspired by God, better to be safe, it won't hurt to leave those out"

These are many of the same folks who base their faith almost entirely on the bible, though. One would think that if one considers the bible that sacred and that holy, that one might be hesistant to throw out six books that may have been given to us through God's inspiration. I think the idea of putting these books in the back of the Old Testament (As they are in some bibles), so that they're included but some indication is given as to the doubt surrounding them is a workable interim solution. Ultimately, though, my hope is that scholarship and/or theological considerations will ultimately settle this issue a bit more fully in a way the universal church can mostly agree upon.

That's one of the reasons I'm so interesting in hearing about recent scholarship and new theological ideas relating to the bible. I would like to see us move towards a better resolution, because, let's face it, the bible is pretty much the only thing every Christian can agree on other than the Lordship of Jesus Christ-- it's that important.

John

[SummaScriptura]

I don't think Luther wanted to through out Tobit.So who took out Tobit? And why?<snip>Here's what I've been able to piece together...

Martin Luther's contribution to removing the Book of Tobit was to denigrate its importance. Tobit and certain other Old Testament books were available to Luther only in Greek; therefore Luther hypothesized they should not be considered scripture inspired by God. So Luther removed those O.T. books from their original placement within the Old Testament and relegated them to an appendix to the Old Testament; this section of the Bible was given the title "Apocrypha". Luther's conotation of the word being "stories of dubious reliability". His word to his followers was one might read these books for their interest, but they were not to be held to the same level of importance as God's word.

As time passed Protestants continued to translate and print Bibles in the vulgar tongues with the now misnomered (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=misnomer) "Apocrypha" in a middle section between the testaments. At first, the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible and others had the middle section called Apocrypha.

Over time, Bible printers decided you could print a thinner Bible more cheaply without those "uncessary" books. Bibles without the Apocrypha were printed as an option initially. Over some more time, almost all Bibles for Protestants (except Anglicans) were printed in this way.

Thus the motive for printing Bibles without the Apocrypha was apparently profit.

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>Also, I was wondering what everyone feels the implications of a canon that took some time to solidy and has changed through the years are theologically. We know the early church didn't have a set canon per say and that the Gnostic gospels and others had to be banned at some point from being recited in Christian fellowship, along with the whole Revelations versus Apocylapse of St. Peter issue. We also see these select Old Testament books that are in the canon of the eastern church and not the western church or vice-versa and which are excluded from Protestant canon entirely, etc. What does this tell us, if anything, about the bible as a whole? Can we trust the canon we have today? How do we know what God intended to be canon or not canon? Do we know that God cares what is included (Within reason)? And, if he does, what is his intent behind allowing this confusion? I'd love to see more discussion on this topic.

John
You raise the real underlying issue here. Fact is not only Protestants are missing books from their Bible, Catholics are missing books too.

It has become my conviction the Protestant vs. Catholic dialog on this issue muddies the water. Protestants say Catholics added books. Catholics say Protestants removed books, etc. Within this dialectic on the matter there's not going to be any getting to the heart of the matter.

All of us, Protestants, Catholics and the rest have received every one of the books in our Bibles from the much older ancient Orthodox communions of the faith. It is my belief (as a Southern Baptist), the Orthodox communions of Christianity have corporately preserved the oldest tradtions attesting to what books should be considered God's word for God's people. Together the Orthodox communions bear witness to us all what the faithful have been reading from the most ancient times. The 66-book core of the Bible and the 7-book misnamed "Apocrypha" were passed down to us all by Orthodoxy. Those books as well as the rest of the books found in the Bibles of Orthodoxy missing from RCC and Protestant Bibles have stood the test of time and have provided edification and encouragement to the people of God over the centuries.

[higgs2]

Catholics *added* books? How on earth can that be supported?

[pmcleanj]

Catholics *added* books? How on earth can that be supported?

Simple math. 1 book + 1 book = 2 books. Continue 70-odd more times, and you have added up enough books to make the Bible. It was Catholics who did it.


... or was that a rhetorical question?

Admittedly, it was more like

1 memoir here + 1 letter there + three or four overlapping scrolls from different translations + let's call this a book even tho' it's only half a book ...

One thing I love about the Harper-Collins NRSV is that it takes an inclusive approach and puts in everything that's included in anyone's OT canon. It's a pity they didn't take the same approach with the NT and give us Didache, Clement and Hermas under the same cover, but I suppose that's why God invented e-book readers.

[SummaScriptura]

It was Catholics who did it.Almost right.

In fact, it was catholics who did it.

[pmcleanj]

Almost right.

In fact, it was catholics who did it.

False distinction. In formal traditional English, capitalization is used not only for proper names, but also for abstract nouns and adjectives. The Book of Common Prayer refers to "Catholic" as "Catholic" in every case where it mentions the One Holy and Catholic church, and that's good enough for me.

When I want to refer to Roman Catholics, I make that clear.

[SummaScriptura]

False distinction. In formal traditional English, capitalization is used not only for proper names, but also for abstract nouns and adjectives. The Book of Common Prayer refers to "Catholic" as "Catholic" in every case where it mentions the One Holy and Catholic church, and that's good enough for me.

When I want to refer to Roman Catholics, I make that clear.
Connotations are what I am talking about. Connotations are distinctions in English which count for either understanding or not understanding. I appreciate that you are well-versed on official uses of the term in the BOCP, but for many Catholic means Roman Catholic, and for many others even catholic does. As a Protestant you don't know the kind of grief I catch for continuing the use the word catholic as a vailid description of what I am. I've even been told I believe in universalism becasue I use the term "catholic" to refer to the mystical body of Christ. So, it may not be a valid distinction, but it is a distinction that is all-too-common nonetheless.

[higgs2]

Simple math. 1 book + 1 book = 2 books. Continue 70-odd more times, and you have added up enough books to make the Bible. It was Catholics who did it.


... or was that a rhetorical question?

Admittedly, it was more like

1 memoir here + 1 letter there + three or four overlapping scrolls from different translations + let's call this a book even tho' it's only half a book ...

One thing I love about the Harper-Collins NRSV is that it takes an inclusive approach and puts in everything that's included in anyone's OT canon. It's a pity they didn't take the same approach with the NT and give us Didache, Clement and Hermas under the same cover, but I suppose that's why God invented e-book readers.


No, I meant that I thought the Protestants *took away* books. :D But you know that's what I meant didn't you. :preach: ;)

[Fish and Bread]

Wow, three and a half years ago me (earlier in the thread)! I always say I never change, but it's almost like reading the comments of an alternate universe me. Maybe I have changed a little bit after all.

[SummaScriptura]

These are many of the same folks who base their faith almost entirely on the bible, though. One would think that if one considers the bible that sacred and that holy, that one might be hesistant to throw out six books that may have been given to us through God's inspiration.Six? Its quite a few more than that.

To be clear:
Protestants today (other than Anglicans) have 66 books.
Roman Catholics have 73 books with addtions to 2 books (Esther, Daniel).
Anglicans have 76 books with addtions to 2 books (Esther, Daniel).
Eastern Orthodox have 78 books with addtions to 3 books (Esther, Daniel, Psalms).

There are other books to consider as well which are/have been accepted by Syrian, Armenian and Ethiopian Orthodoxy.


I think the idea of putting these books in the back of the Old Testament (As they are in some bibles), so that they're included but some indication is given as to the doubt surrounding them is a workable interim solution. Ultimately, though, my hope is that scholarship and/or theological considerations will ultimately settle this issue a bit more fully in a way the universal church can mostly agree upon.

That's one of the reasons I'm so interesting in hearing about recent scholarship and new theological ideas relating to the bible. I would like to see us move towards a better resolution, because, let's face it, the bible is pretty much the only thing every Christian can agree on other than the Lordship of Jesus Christ-- it's that important.

John
I agree.

[higgs2]

Wow, three and a half years ago me (earlier in the thread)! I always say I never change, but it's almost like reading the comments of an alternate universe me. Maybe I have changed a little bit after all.

You change a lot. :)

[SirTimothy]

Connotations are what I am talking about. Connotations are distinctions in English which count for either understanding or not understanding. I appreciate that you are well-versed on official uses of the term in the BOCP, but for many Catholic means Roman Catholic, and for many others even catholic does. As a Protestant you don't know the kind of grief I catch for continuing the use the word catholic as a vailid description of what I am. I've even been told I believe in universalism becasue I use the term "catholic" to refer to the mystical body of Christ. So, it may not be a valid distinction, but it is a distinction that is all-too-common nonetheless.

Possibly true, but nonetheless completely irrelevant in an Anglican forum where we use 'Catholic' in the Anglican way, thus if you use Catholic to refer to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, we're likely to get upset, even though we love them anyway. And even if we think the term 'Roman Catholic' is a contradiction in terms.

Tim

[SummaScriptura]

Possibly true, but nonetheless completely irrelevant in an Anglican forum where we use 'Catholic' in the Anglican way, thus if you use Catholic to refer to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, we're likely to get upset, even though we love them anyway. And even if we think the term 'Roman Catholic' is a contradiction in terms.

TimThank you for your patience and the explanation. Now I know we're on the same page. :)

[LivingWordUnity]

Possibly true, but nonetheless completely irrelevant in an Anglican forum where we use 'Catholic' in the Anglican way, thus if you use Catholic to refer to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, we're likely to get upset, even though we love them anyway. And even if we think the term 'Roman Catholic' is a contradiction in terms.

TimThe Church that Protestants call the "Roman Catholic Church" or "RCC" for short, has never officially called herself that. The official name has always either been the Church of Christ or simply the Catholic Church.

That's why we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. "Roman Catholic" is a name that was originally given to us by Protestants and was intended as a put down.

[IowaLutheran]

The Church that Protestants call the "Roman Catholic Church" or "RCC" for short, has never officially called herself that. The official name has always either been the Church of Christ or simply the Catholic Church.



Never?

In registering itself as a corporation here in the State of Iowa, they referred to themselves as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Des Moines:

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/Search/corp/corp_summary.asp?corpno=A79C01FB8B9511F6C89DA43378AEF5F9FA6387263AEFCE100BA4F8121D3037FF&Corp=roman+catholic

Also, a search on www.vatican.va for "Roman Catholic" also yields plenty of official documents where the Church refers to herself as "Roman Catholic" - primarily in ecumenical documents, but also others.

Also, the Catechism itself refers to a statement from the Council of Lyons where the church referred to itself as "Roman" -

1059 "The holy Roman Church firmly believes and confesses that on the Day of Judgment all men will appear in their own bodies before Christ's tribunal to render an account of their own deeds" (Council of Lyons II [1274]: DS 859; cf. DS 1549).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

[karen freeinchristman]

Please take note that this is not a thread on the validity of the use of the name 'Roman Catholic'...

[LivingWordUnity]

Never?

In registering itself as a corporation here in the State of Iowa, they referred to themselves as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Des Moines:

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/Search/corp/corp_summary.asp?corpno=A79C01FB8B9511F6C89DA43378AEF5F9FA6387263AEFCE100BA4F8121D3037FF&Corp=roman+catholic

Also, a search on www.vatican.va (http://www.vatican.va) for "Roman Catholic" also yields plenty of official documents where the Church refers to herself as "Roman Catholic" - primarily in ecumenical documents, but also others.

Also, the Catechism itself refers to a statement from the Council of Lyons where the church referred to itself as "Roman" -

1059 "The holy Roman Church firmly believes and confesses that on the Day of Judgment all men will appear in their own bodies before Christ's tribunal to render an account of their own deeds" (Council of Lyons II [1274]: DS 859; cf. DS 1549).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm Karen Freeinchristman's post reminds me that, as a Catholic, I am not allowed to debate or teach in the Anglican forums. But I would be happy to respond to your post if you would like through a PM.

[Secundulus]

Almost right.

In fact, it was catholics who did it.
The Catholics, and Orthodox, kept the books in the Old Testament that were part of the Septuagint in use by Christ and the Apostles.

The Protestants used the Jewish Cannon that was not established until the second century.

It seems to me that using the books used by the Apostles is more sound than using a Canon established by the Jews long after Christ was crucified.