Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"
Hands on Apologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

Posted on 03/25/2012 2:40:30 AM PDT by GonzoII

    The Pilgrims' Regress 

    The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

    By Gary Michuta

Every American schoolchild knows that the pilgrims landed on Plymouth rock, but do they know which Bible the pilgrims used? Most people, if asked the question, would say the Puritans used the good old King James Version. Wrong. The King James Bible was the "Authorized Version" of the Established Church of England and the Puritans were religious dissenters from that church. The Puritan's Bible of choice was the Geneva Bible, which was translated by Protestants who fled to Geneva from England during the reign of Queen Mary.

    The Geneva Bible broke new ground for printed Bibles. It was the first Bible to assign chapter and verses to the text and its copious marginal notes qualify it to be called the first study Bible. The marginal notes were from a Reformed perspective and the Geneva Bible (1599) is still revered by many Reformed Protestants today.

    Like nearly all early Protestant Bibles, the Geneva Bible contained the Deuterocanon gathered together into an appendix between the Old and New Testaments titled "Apocrypha" (Right - the 1599 Geneva Bible's table of contents). By "Apocrypha," the early Reformers meant those books that are good and beneficial for Christians to read, but not for the

    purpose of confirming doctrine. The Geneva Bible also sported (like the early editions of its authorized counterpart) cross references to the "Apocrypha" in the New Testament. The importance of these cross references should not be minimized; they demonstrate that the early editors believed that the "Apocrypha" played in integral role in the New Testament text and that the cross referenced texts aided the Protestant reader in understanding and interpreting the New Testament. As time moved on, these benefits were overshadowed by anti-Catholic prejudice and the desire to minimize the books that the Catholic Church reaffirmed as inspired Scripture. The cross references slowly started to disappear from margins of the King James Version and the Geneva Bible until all of them, and the "Apocrypha" itself had totally disappeared.

    The following are examples of the more interesting "Apocrypha" cross references that were omitted (suppressed?) in later editions.

    Geneva 1560 - Matthew 27:34 / Wisdom 2:18

    Geneva 1599 - Wisdom Omitted

    The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible listed two cross-references for Matthew 27:43, namely Psalm 22:9 and Wisdom 2:18. Unlike Psalm 22:9, only Wisdom 2:18 links God's promise to rescue the Just One's claim to be the Son of God. However, the 1599 edition of the same Bible retains only Psalm 22:9 replacing Wisdom 2:18 with a cross reference to the Gospel of Mark.

    Geneva 1560 - James 3:2

    Geneva 1599 - Omitted

    The 1560 edition gives James 3:2 three consecutive cross references to the Book of Sirach (Sir. 14:1, 19:16, and 25:11). There is nothing earthshaking regarding these cross references. Still, its interesting that the editors of the 1560 edition saw multiple contacts with Sirach while the editors of the 1599 entirely omits all three.

    Geneva 1560 - Hebrews 1:3

    Geneva 1599 - Omitted

    The 1560 edition provides an important cross reference from Hebrews 1:3 to Wisdom 7:26. Hebrews speaks of Jesus as the "refulgence" (Geneva Bible "brightness") of God's glory. The Greek word "Apaugasma" is used only in Hebrews 1:3 and Wisdom 7:26 in the Greek Bible. Moreover, the context of Wisdom's description of Wisdom personified sheds much light (pun intended) on who Jesus is. Unfortunately, the readers of the later 1599 edition were left in the dark as to this connection.

    Geneva 1560 - Hebrews 11:35 - Omitted

    Geneva 1599 - Reference Added

    The Geneva 1560 edition oddly omits a cross reference to 2 Maccabees 7:1-42 in Hebrews 11:35 even though the connection between these two texts is beyond doubt. Not only is Second Maccabees 7:1-42 the only place in the Greek Bible where people suffered torture and death explicitly for their hope in the resurrection (2 Macc. 7:9, 11, 14, 23, 29), but Hebrews 11:35-36 describes their suffering using the same words as Second Maccabees (tympanizo and empaigmos). The 1599 edition remedied this earlier defect, not by cross referencing 2 Maccabees 7:1-42, but by inserting the cryptic statement, "He [the writer of Hebrews] means that perfection which Antiochus wrought."

    In my book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007), I chronicle the demise of the "Apocrypha" in Protestant Bibles. And frankly it was one of the most difficult sections of my book to write since I could see how so many Protestants today have been unknowingly robbed of their Protestant heritage because later editors were embarrassed by the beliefs of the predecessors. It seemed clear to me then (as it does now) that these omissions were not the result of overcrowded margins. They were removed for another purpose. As the Protestant theologian William Daubney explains,

    "Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so... these references disappeared from the margins" (The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: Clay and Sons, 1900), 21).

    Hence we see the Pilgrims' regress from the historic form of the Protestant Bible. Not only that, but even more importantly, we see an even further departure from the form of the historic and ancient Christian Bibles, which always included the Deuterocanon interdispersed within the Old Testament corpus.

 



TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; catholic; deuterocanonicals; genevabible
Mt:27:43: He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Wisd. 2:18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.

Jas:3:2: For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

Sirach 14:1 Blessed is the man that hath not slipped with his mouth, and is not pricked with the multitude of sins.

Sirach 19:16 There is one that slippeth in his speech, but not from his heart; and who is he that hath not offended with his tongue?

Sirach 25: 11 11 Blessed is he that dwells with a wise woman, and that has not slipped with his tongue, and that has not served such as are unworthy of him.

Heb:1:3: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Wisd. 7:26 For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.

Heb:11:35: Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection.

2 Maccabees 7: 1-42:

1 It came to pass also, that seven brethren, together with their mother, were apprehended, and compelled by the king to eat swine’s flesh against the law, for which end they were tormented with whips and scourges.

2 But one of them, who was the eldest, said thus: What wouldst thou ask, or learn of us? we are ready to die, rather than to transgress the laws of God, received from our fathers.

3 Then the king being angry, commanded fryingpans and brazen caldrons to be made hot: which forthwith being heated,

4 He commanded to cut out the tongue of him that had spoken first: and the skin of his head being drawn off, to chop off also the extremities of his hands and feet, the rest of his brethren and his mother looking on.

5 And when he was now maimed in all parts, he commanded him, being yet alive, to be brought to the fire, and to be fried in the fryingpan: and while he was suffering therein long torments, the rest, together with the mother, exhorted one another to die manfully,

6 Saying: The Lord God will look upon the truth, and will take pleasure in us, as Moses declared in the profession of the canticle; And in his servants he will take pleasure.

7 So when the first was dead after this manner, they brought the next to make him a mocking stock: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him if he would eat, before he were punished throughout the whole body in every limb.

8 But he answered in his own language, and said: I will not do it. Wherefore he also, in the next place, received the torments of the first:

9 And when he was at the last gasp, he said thus: Thou indeed, O most wicked man, destroyest us out of this present life: but the King of the world will raise us up, who die for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life.

10 After him the third was made a mocking-stock, and when he was required, he quickly put forth his tongue, and courageously stretched out his hands:

11 And said with confidence: These I have from heaven, but for the laws of God I now despise them, because I hope to receive them again from him.

12 So that the king, and they that were with him, wondered at the young man’s courage, because he esteemed the torments as nothing.

13 And after he was thus dead, they tormented the fourth in the like manner.

14 And when he was now ready to die, he spoke thus: It is better, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God, to be raised up again by him; for, as to thee, thou shalt have no resurrection unto life.

15 And when they had brought the fifth, they tormented him. But he, looking upon the king,

16 Said: Whereas thou hast power among men though thou art corruptible, thou dost what thou wilt but think not that our nation is forsaken by God.

17 But stay patiently a while, and thou shalt see his great power, in what manner he will torment thee and thy seed.

18 After him they brought the sixth, and he being ready to die, spoke thus: Be not deceived without cause: for we suffer these things for ourselves, having sinned against our God, and things worthy of admiration are done to us:

19 But do not think that thou shalt escape unpunished, for that thou hast attempted to fight against God.

20 Now the mother was to be admired above measure, and worthy to be remembered by good men, who beheld her seven sons slain in the space of one day, and bore it with a good courage, for the hope that she had in God:

21 And she bravely exhorted every one of them in her own language, being filled with wisdom; and joining a man’s heart to a woman’s thought,

22 She said to them: I know not how you were formed in my womb; for I neither gave you breath, nor soul, nor life, neither did I frame the limbs of every one of you.

23 But the Creator of the world, that formed the nativity of man, and that found out the origin of all, he will restore to you again, in his mercy, both breath and life, as now you despise yourselves for the sake of his laws.

24 Now Antiochus, thinking himself despised, and withal despising the voice of the upbraider, when the youngest was yet alive, did not only exhort him by words, but also assured him with an oath, that he would make him a rich and a happy man, and, if he would turn from the laws of his fathers, would take him for a friend, and furnish him with things necessary.

25 But when the young man was not moved with these things, the king called the mother, and counselled her to deal with the young man to save his life.

26 And when he had exhorted her with many words she promised that she would counsel her son.

27 So bending herself towards him, mocking the cruel tyrant, she said in her own language: My son have pity upon me, that bore thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee suck three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age.

28 I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them, and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also:

29 So thou shalt not fear this tormentor, but being made a worthy partner with thy brethren, receive death, that in that mercy I may receive thee again with thy brethren.

30 While she was yet speaking these words, the young man said: For whom do you stay? I will not obey the commandment of the king, but the commandment of the law which was given us by Moses.

31 But thou that hast been the author of all mischief against the Hebrews, shalt not escape the hand of God.

32 For we suffer thus for our sins.

33 And though the Lord, our God, is angry with us a little while, for our chastisement and correction, yet he will be reconciled again to his servants.

34 But thou, O wicked, and of all men most flagitious, be not lifted up without cause with vain hopes, whilst thou art raging against his servants.

35 For thou hast not yet escaped the judgment of the Almighty God, who beholdeth all things.

36 For my brethren having now undergone a short pain, are under the covenant of eternal life: but thou, by the judgment of God, shalt receive just punishment for thy pride.

37 But I, like my brethren, offer up my life and my body for the laws of our fathers: calling upon God to be speedily merciful to our nation, and that thou by torments and stripes mayst confess that he alone is God.

38 But in me, and in my brethren, the wrath of the Almighty, which hath justly been brought upon all our nation, shall cease.

39 Then the king being incensed with anger, raged against him more cruelly than all the rest, taking it grievously that he was mocked.

40 So this man also died undefiled, wholly trusting in the Lord.

41 And last of all, after the sons, the mother also was consumed.

42 But now there is enough said of the sacrifices and of the excessive cruelties.

It came to pass also, that seven brethren with their mother were taken, and compelled by the king against the law to taste swine's flesh, and were tormented with scourges and whips.


1 posted on 03/25/2012 2:40:42 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
The King James Bible was with the Puritans as well as the Geneva when they landed in America.
2 posted on 03/25/2012 3:12:12 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Ironic headline...I am rereading “Pilgrim’s Regress” by CS Lewis right now, and thought at first the article might be about that book.


3 posted on 03/25/2012 3:31:49 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

I’m breathessly awaiting his criticism of Foxes Book of Martyrs or Pilgrims Progress.


4 posted on 03/25/2012 3:43:14 AM PDT by TwoSwords
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

So thou shalt not fear this tormentor, but being made a worthy partner with thy brethren, receive death, that in that mercy I may receive thee again with thy brethren.

Religion of death.


5 posted on 03/25/2012 3:50:25 AM PDT by Skylab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Sooo, which is the plenary, inerrant word of God?... or do I blaspheme by asking?
6 posted on 03/25/2012 4:18:26 AM PDT by dps.inspect (the system is rigged...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skylab
"Religion of death."

receive death, that in that mercy I may receive thee again with thy brethren.

You missed the resurrection part.

7 posted on 03/25/2012 4:35:43 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Skylab

All die . . .


8 posted on 03/25/2012 4:36:47 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
"Ironic headline...I am rereading “Pilgrim’s Regress” by CS Lewis right now, and thought at first the article might be about that book."

No psych intended...enjoy your read.

9 posted on 03/25/2012 4:40:03 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect
"or do I blaspheme by asking?"

If I could only find some stones.../s

10 posted on 03/25/2012 4:43:42 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

*


11 posted on 03/25/2012 4:54:52 AM PDT by WestwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

The Stone of Skones would seem fitting.


12 posted on 03/25/2012 5:29:03 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Thank you. Very interesting.

I have never been able to quite pinpoint who had (or thought they had) the authority to remove chunks of Scripture. I mean the actual names of the men who made this 16th century decision to de-canonize books of the Bible. Did they vote on it? When? What was the vote? And what was their rationale for discarding books accepted as Christian Scripture for over 1,000 years?

Looking for a shortish answer :o)

13 posted on 03/25/2012 6:21:10 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skylab

She professes confidence that he will be raised up again, together with his brothers. It’s a key element of the Faith. Without this, we would be “of all men the most to be pitied.”


14 posted on 03/25/2012 6:25:53 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
"Thank you. Very interesting."

You're welcome.

15 posted on 03/25/2012 7:40:38 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

The 1st edition of the King James Bible did have the Apocrypha in it. It wasn’t until the 1660s that it was removed in some editions, and not uniformly until the 1769 edition.


16 posted on 03/25/2012 8:33:53 AM PDT by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
who made this 16th century decision to de-canonize books of the Bible.

Actually, the catholic church didn't officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent.

17 posted on 03/25/2012 9:33:00 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: what's up
OK, extra point to you for "canonize" as a particularly formal declaratory process. But the unbroken practice of the Church East and West for 1000+ years included the books now called deuterocanonical. It's usually only the spur of dissent or the pressure of controversy that motivates the forensic "defining" of something that was previously regarded as settled for a millennium. (Analogously: did Blackstone invent Common Law?) Quod ubique and all that. :o)

Jaroslav Peliken writes knowledgeably on this.

18 posted on 03/25/2012 10:07:37 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
But the unbroken practice of the Church East and West for 1000+ years included the books now called deuterocanonical.

Including the books doesn't mean they were always cosidered to be inspired. And I find it interesting how you disregard the first centuries' take on them; usually catholics would count the early fathers' opinions as sacrosanct.

It's usually only the spur of dissent or the pressure of controversy that motivates the forensic "defining"

I don't know about "usually". But in this case it's the Biblical content itself as well as other external factors such as the Jews never having considered the apocrypha as inspired (for good reason).

It's good history...not inspired.

19 posted on 03/25/2012 12:20:56 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: what's up
I'm not even a popcorn-gallery-level scholar --- heck, I don't even read Greek --- but my understanding is that the Jews in fact energetically distributed the deuterocanonical books of the LXX all over the Mediterranean world --- the Levant, Northern Africa, Asia Minor, Greece, all the way across to Cadiz --- from about 200 BC to about 100 AD (i.e. the whole formative period before Christ and the Apostolic years of the Christian era). It was the very basis of the early spread of Christianity.

The Jewish leadership only rejected them based on the fact that they so strongly facilitated Christian beliefs such as eternal life, the resurrection of the dead, and the cosmopolitan (non-ethnic-Jewish) breadth of the Christian community.

Of course you're going to have to depend on some extra-Biblical authority to determine what the canon of inspired Scripture is, since the Bible itself did not come with a table of contents. The Christians had their councils (Hippo and Carthage) and the anti-Christians, led by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, had theirs (Jamnia). The Christian councils kept the LXX and the deuterocanonicals; the rabbinical council at Jamnia, reacting against the spread of Christianity, threw them out.

Just as they threw the Christians out of their synagogues.

I decidedly agree with Rabbi ben Zakkai that the LXX with its whole 45-book canon strongly confirms the Christian perspective. That's why he was against it, and that's why I am for it.

Reference: http://tinyurl.com/LXX-jamnia>

20 posted on 03/25/2012 1:28:49 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Peace!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The Jewish leadership only rejected them based on the fact that they so strongly facilitated Christian beliefs such as eternal life

No, long before the christian era Jews did not count them as inspired . They included them in the Septuagint because the books told of the history of Jews between Artaxerxes and the Roman era. However, Jews even before Christ's birth did not believe them to be inspired.

The Christian councils kept the LXX and the deuterocanonicals

But they are not included in the early lists of inspired books. It was only in the 16th century that they were declared canonical by catholics.

21 posted on 03/25/2012 1:52:13 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Great post. Thanks.


22 posted on 03/25/2012 2:06:37 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

As far as I know, Martin Luther, took things out and added words back in......both of which are forbidden in the Bible. Poor Martin.


23 posted on 03/25/2012 2:08:45 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Catholic Scripture Study Bible - RSV Large Print Edition


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther



The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"
The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

24 posted on 03/25/2012 2:14:05 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: what's up
To be useful, your information would have to be a good deal more specific. You can't just say "the" "Jews" believed this or that without saying which Jews, because they did not have a centralized Magisterium and had differences of opinion among themselves.

The Sadducees and the Samaritans held that only the books of Moses--- the first five books of the Bible --- were inspired: if you took them as your guide, the Old Testament would consist of five books. They considered the Nevi'im (the Prophets) and the Ketuvim (the Pslams, Proverbs, poetic and Wisdom literature) to be "apocryphal".

The Essenes in Judea had some books not found in other groups (see Dead Sea scrolls). The Jews of Ethiopia had approx. the same "broader" canon as the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

So you've got the Pharisees vs the Sadducees vs the Essenes: Hillel vs Gamaliel; all these groups had different opinions. Look at all the Jewish controversies about the 1, or 2, or 3, or 4 books of Esdras!

So it's fair to say some Jews efore Christ's birth considered the seven deuterocanonical books to be inspired, and some didn't. The ones who DID, significantly coincided with the ones who in the early A.D. period accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The more conservative, Torah-only Jews were at the other end of the spectrum: they didn't accept a "broad canon," and didn't accept Jesus as Messiah, either.

There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no "Bible" as we now know it n the early Church. The Church developed the canon, principally by liturgical practice and not by some kind of pre-emptive decree. The Church existed, developed and grew for the better part of 4 centuries without an "official" authoritatively defined canon of Scriptures.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's Roman Catholic canon. So did the Council of Hippo, 393. So did Pope Innocent I (405). So that list was in use for roughly 10 centuries before some (but not all) of the Reformers started disputing all over again.

To answer the (subset of) Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books, the Council of Trent in 1556 made its formal re-iteration of what had already been accepted for 1000+ years.

25 posted on 03/25/2012 6:15:56 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Peace!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: what's up

Incorrect. As a very quick way to see how wrong your supposition is one need look no further than the bibles of the Orthodox churches. These all include the Deuterocanon, and many contain a few books beyond this, and yet they separated from the Latin Church roughly a thousand years ago. They certainly have no love for the Church in Rome and would hardly have felt bound to obey Trent some five centuries after the schism.

Your position also simply ignores the overwhelming history of the biblical canon in the West, from councils in Hippo, Orange and Rome to the commissioning of the Vulgate itself.


26 posted on 03/25/2012 7:16:37 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
one need look no further than the bibles of the Orthodox churches. These all include the Deuterocanon

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

27 posted on 03/25/2012 9:55:14 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
You can't just say "the" "Jews" believed this or that without saying which Jews

Jews in general. You'll have a hard time finding Jews who believed the Apocrypha to have been inspired.

For example...one of the reasons they denied the books as inspired was the advent of the Maccabees as kings in 1, 2 Maccabees. Jews considered the Davidic line to be anointed by God and knew the Messiah would spring from that line. Thus, they did not think the Maccabbees to be anointed in the same way as the Davidic Kingship of the OT, thus the books were not in the same vein as the God-breathed scripture of the OT.

28 posted on 03/25/2012 10:10:17 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: what's up

I think the Ethiopian Jews accepted the same list of books as inspired as do Ethiopian Christians. Ditto for Bene Israelie — the Jews in Maharashtra, india


29 posted on 03/26/2012 1:41:22 AM PDT by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: what's up
I appreciate your patient persistence in this discussion, my FRiend. But I’m afraid you missed my main point. Maybe I didn't state it clearly, so with your permission, let me try again.

There were always different “schools” or factions of Judaism, some of which didn’t recognize anything as fully canonical except the first five books of Moses (the Torah). Others insisted that the wider canon, including the Wisdom literature found in the Septuagint (LXX) was inspired. The version of the OT most widespread throughout the period 200 BC – 100 AD was in fact the LXX. This would be considered “all of Scripture” by the Jews who took the wider canon view.

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." The inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical books. Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

The LXX was used by all of the New Testament authors. THESE are the Jews who accepted the seven deuterocanonical books. THESE are the Jews accepted “all of Scripture” as God-breathed: the ones who wrote and assembled the New Testament. The ones who accepted Christ!

There was another faction that strongly rejected them. The School of Jamnia (90 - 100 A.D.) rejected the seven deuterocanonical books, the LXX, and the entire New Testatment canon.

To reject the Catholic synods and councils on this matter of canonicity is to follow a Jewish council that rejected Christ.

30 posted on 03/26/2012 6:56:17 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Peace!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: what's up
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

I am speaking of your assertion that the Church didn't "canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent." In order to accept that one must believe that the Orthodox Churches, which includes these books in their bibles, accepted the validity of that council. This is, of course, impossible as they had been separated from communion with Rome for about five hundred years at that time, and were openly hostile to her for centuries before that.

31 posted on 03/26/2012 7:27:37 AM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Great post. Thanks.

You’re welcome!


32 posted on 03/26/2012 7:30:57 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
But I’m afraid you missed my main point.

No, actually it's you who apparently missed my response to that main point. Let me re-iterate:

"Jews in general. You'll have a hard time finding Jews who believed the Apocrypha to have been inspired"

Josephus' view was typical of the Jew in that time period, both before and after the Christian era.

Others insisted that the wider canon, including the Wisdom literature found in the Septuagint (LXX) was inspired

Fringe groups perhaps... though I don't know of any. However, the general thinking among the Jews was that the apocrypha was not inspired, no matter how many times you state the contrary.

33 posted on 03/26/2012 11:33:24 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
I was speaking of the catholics.

They didn't pronounce the apocrypha as officially part of the canon for the entire church until Trent.

As far as the orthodox church I think this is more or less their position:

The Russian edition of the Old Testament published by the Moscow Patriarchate in 2000 includes among the other books the following books marked with stars: 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Letter of Jeremiah, Baruch, 3 books of the Maccabees and 3 Esdras. These books are seen as being edifying but not of the authority of the other Old Testament books.

34 posted on 03/26/2012 11:38:37 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect
The answer is in, albeit glossed over, the article:
the Geneva Bible contained the Deuterocanon gathered together into an appendix between the Old and New Testaments titled "Apocrypha" (Right - the 1599 Geneva Bible's table of contents). By "Apocrypha," the early Reformers meant those books that are good and beneficial for Christians to read, but not for the purpose of confirming doctrine.

35 posted on 03/26/2012 11:41:49 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: what's up
Thank you for the clarification. Let's go on.

Josephus being "typical" is something you are asserting without evidence, and about which I have no opinion. I did not, however, say that acceptance of the whole "wider" canon of the LXX was typical, only that it was typical of the communities which also accepted the canon of the New Testament. Josephus was not a member of one of these communities.

It may well be that the "typical" Jew of Josephus' time accepted neither the LXX nor the New Testament as God-inspired Scripture.

However, a significant "fringe" group --- the Christians --- accepted both.

36 posted on 03/26/2012 12:02:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Peace!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Josephus being "typical" is something you are asserting without evidence,

Even Philo in all his voluminous work never quoted the apocrypha in a way that assumed inspiration and that carries even more weight since he was a Greek jew.

Josephus was not a member of one of these communities.

Quite obvious.

Let's go on.

No, let's not. This discussion has become tedious and we're just covering the same ground over and over again.

37 posted on 03/26/2012 1:31:47 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: what's up
I was speaking of the catholics.

They didn't pronounce the apocrypha as officially part of the canon for the entire church until Trent.

But, they were Catholics and they had a canon before they split with the West. Your approach ignores that the East and West were one Church for a thousand years, and ceased to be such, administratively speaking anyway, five centuries before Trent. For this reason the witness of the East is a very telling evidence that Trent is not when this became definitive.

And, let me add that, regarding more purely Western modes of thought, the assertion so common that a teaching only became definitive, or "official," when a Pope wrote it in a bull or a council issued an anathema about it is a fallacy. The Church doesn't work that way, and such a point of view is to almost entirely miss the mark of what councils and popes do. Just as the Assumption didn't become "official" with Munificentissimus Deus, neither did the canon become official with Trent. If that were so then the Gospel of John and Genesis would also only "officially" enter the canon then. Sorry, but not quite.

As far as the orthodox church I think this is more or less their position:

The Russian edition of the Old Testament published by the Moscow Patriarchate in 2000 includes among the other books the following books marked with stars: 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Letter of Jeremiah, Baruch, 3 books of the Maccabees and 3 Esdras. These books are seen as being edifying but not of the authority of the other Old Testament books.

Yes, they don't view them as all being equal, but that doesn't demonstrate what you seem to think. For one thing, Catholics certainly don't view all biblical texts as equal and we never have. Just look at how we treat the Gospels during Mass and compare that to what we do regarding the epistles. Quite a different level of authority. And historically you would never get any argument from any Catholic about whether the books of Moses outranked Tobias. It is obvious.

However, what is most interesting is that you overlooked the most telling part of that quote of yours. These books are seen as being edifying but not of the authority of the other Old Testament books. These books are in fact Old Testament books, and the Old Testament is most definitively the Bible. These are not in an appendix attached to the Bible, but are in the Bible itself. And they are so not because of Trent, but because the Orthodox Church already believed this for at least five centuries before the schism, and a thousand years before that council. And to reiterate, the Church that believed that for all that time was not the Eastern Church, but the Catholic Church throughout the world.

38 posted on 03/26/2012 5:45:47 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
Yes, they don't view them as all being equal, but that doesn't demonstrate what you seem to think. For one thing, Catholics certainly don't view all biblical texts as equal and we never have. Just look at how we treat the Gospels during Mass and compare that to what we do regarding the epistles. Quite a different level of authority. And historically you would never get any argument from any Catholic about whether the books of Moses outranked Tobias. It is obvious.

However, what is most interesting is that you overlooked the most telling part of that quote of yours. These books are seen as being edifying but not of the authority of the other Old Testament books. These books are in fact Old Testament books, and the Old Testament is most definitively the Bible. These are not in an appendix attached to the Bible, but are in the Bible itself. And they are so not because of Trent, but because the Orthodox Church already believed this for at least five centuries before the schism, and a thousand years before that council. And to reiterate, the Church that believed that for all that time was not the Eastern Church, but the Catholic Church throughout the world.

That's a whole bunch of correct that you have posted. Well spoken. There are a lot of people who think that the Church begins and ends with Rome. I happen to be of the Latin branch, but that does not mean that my Greek or Russian or Serbian or Turkish or... brethren are any more or less Catholic than I am.

There is one Church.

39 posted on 03/26/2012 6:13:08 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I have never been able to quite pinpoint who had (or thought they had) the authority to remove chunks of Scripture.

Whoever they were, I think that they were well fortified with:


40 posted on 03/26/2012 6:19:04 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
Just as the Assumption didn't become "official" with Munificentissimus Deus, neither did the canon become official with Trent. If that were so then the Gospel of John and Genesis would also only "officially" enter the canon then

John and Genesis didn't have nearly the debate over their canonicity as did the apocryphal books. There wasn't the level of early church dissension about their inspiration (Jerome, Cyril, John of Damascus,Origen, Athanasius). This was among the factors that led to Trent finally declaring the apocrypha inspired.

the most telling part of that quote of yours. These books are seen as being edifying but not of the authority of the other Old Testament books. These books are in fact Old Testament books

Insofar as they were bound together. I consider my maps part of my Bible too but they're not inspired.

Just look at how we treat the Gospels during Mass and compare that to what we do regarding the epistles. Quite a different level of authority.

God's authority reigns over all of the NT. His authority doesn't wax and wane. It's not dependent on which book you read.

41 posted on 03/26/2012 7:31:00 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: what's up
John and Genesis didn't have nearly the debate over their canonicity as did the apocryphal books.

No, but that is hardly the issue. They were never canonized officially, according to your definition, before Trent, and yet we know full well both are and always were accepted as scripture by the Church. And many New Testament texts were heavily debated, and much more so than any deuterocanonical text, including James and the Apocalypse. And these were also scripture and had been for more than a thousand years when Trent convened. And we know it in exactly the same ways and for the same reasons as we do the rest of scripture, including the entirety of the Old Testament.

There wasn't the level of early church dissension about their inspiration (Jerome, Cyril, John of Damascus,Origen, Athanasius). This was among the factors that led to Trent finally declaring the apocrypha inspired.

No, Trent was convened many, many centuries after these people wrote and spoke and was a response to the Reformation. That was because Protestantism was a catastrophic rupture and threatened the entire Church, whereas these people's comments obviously never created any real doubt for people about the canon.

And, btw, this list is misleading. These men hardly rejected the deuterocanon, though some gave differing lists when they bothered. Most, if not all, of these men (I am not sure about St. Cyril of Jerusalem) went on to not only quote from the deuteros with authority for defining doctrinal positions, but even called them scripture. I can recall one reference by St. John Damascene to the book of Wisdom calling it "the divine scripture." Hardly a rejection. Origen and St. Athanasius particularly left numerous very clear references and uses of the deuterocanon calling it scripture. And most of them listed books such as Baruch and Wisdom even in their lists supposedly rejecting the "apocrypha" and some included some real oddities like the Didache as New Testament in the case of St. John Damascene.

St. Jerome is really the only real contender to be used as a voice against the deuteros, and yet all the early extant copies of his translation of the Scripture, the Vulgate, include copies of those books. Not from him of course, as he wouldn't bother, but they were included. Why? Because the Church wanted them there, whether St. Jerome did or not. And even he, btw, referred to several of the "apocrypha" as scripture throughout his lifetime, and even defended the inclusion of the Greek additions to Daniel at a later date.

42 posted on 03/27/2012 2:23:26 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Most informative commentary on the Geneva Bible, thanks for posting.


43 posted on 04/04/2012 9:08:50 PM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson