Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | Friday, November 10, 2006 | Dave Armstrong

Posted on 10/28/2013 12:50:17 PM PDT by GonzoII

(Bible verses: RSV)

The Old Testament in Catholic Bibles contains seven more books than are found in Protestant Bibles (46 and 39, respectively). Protestants call these seven books the Apocrypha and Catholics know them as the deuterocanonical books. These seven books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch. Also, Catholic Bibles contain an additional six chapters (107 verses) in the book of Esther and another three in the book of Daniel (174 verses). These books and chapters were found in Bible manuscripts in Greek only, and were not part of the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, as determined by the Jews.

All of these were dogmatically acknowledged as Scripture at the Council of Trent in 1548 (which means that Catholics were henceforth not allowed to question their canonicity), although the tradition of their inclusion was ancient. At the same time, the Council rejected 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses as part of Sacred Scripture (these are often included in collections of the "Apocrypha" as a separate unit).

The Catholic perspective on this issue is widely misunderstood. Protestants accuse Catholics of "adding" books to the Bible, while Catholics retort that Protestants have "booted out" part of Scripture. Catholics are able to offer very solid and reasonable arguments in defense of the scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books. These can be summarized as follows:

1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.

6) Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.

7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.

8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii).

9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.

[Later clarifying note, added on 9-13-07: the red words I no longer agree with, as stated, based on subsequent in-depth research that I have undertaken since 1994, when this was written (perhaps it was written as early as 1991). Like any careful, conscientious researcher, I sometimes (gladly) modify -- even sometimes reverse -- earlier understandings with further study. For my current opinions on Luther and the canon, see:

Luther's Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Books

Did Martin Luther Deny the Canonicity of Esther? ]


11)
The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.

[Later clarifying note, added on 9-13-07: Luther softened or rejected these more radical opinions in later, revised prefaces, some 20 years later, so that I would write this portion of my first book differently today, in light of my research done since 1994]
12) Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can't benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The "penance interpretation" is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of "Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day," and so forth.

As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:

13) Ironically, in some of the same verses where the New Testament is virtually quoting the "Apocrypha," doctrines are taught which are rejected by Protestantism, and which were a major reason why the deuterocanonical books were "demoted" by them. Therefore, it was not as easy to eliminate these disputed doctrines from the Bible as it was (and is) supposed, and Protestants still must grapple with much New Testament data which does not comport with their beliefs.

14) Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) "useful and good to read." Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans maintained them in this secondary sense also. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and Bishop's Bible (1568) both included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 contained the "Apocrypha" as a matter of course. And up to the present time many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Bible (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others.

15) The deuterocanonical books are read regularly in public worship in Anglicanism, and also among the Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants and Jews fully accept their value as historical and religious documents, useful for teaching, even though they deny them full canonical status.

It is apparent, then, that the Catholic "case" for these scriptural books carries a great deal of weight, certainly at the very least equal to the Protestant view.

Written in 1996 by Dave Armstrong. Included in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: pp. 259-264.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; bible; deuterocanonicals; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last

1 posted on 10/28/2013 12:50:17 PM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Even that information gives too much credit to the Protestant argument; it describes the case as was known during the reformation. We now know that at least five of the seven books WERE written in Hebrew. It’s simply that by the time of the Reformation (and even St. Jerome’s time), Hebrew manuscripts were unknown because the Jews no longer kept them: because they had been blamed for agitating hopes for the Messiah, which the Jews blamed for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.


2 posted on 10/28/2013 12:56:12 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“Did Martin Luther Deny the Canonicity of Esther?”

Perhaps, but guess what. The book of Esther was the only book from the old testament that was not among the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1946. Sirach and Maccabees were the only ones from the Apocrypha.

Kind of gives credibility to his claim.


3 posted on 10/28/2013 1:05:44 PM PDT by MNDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNDude
Maccabees, of course, is two books. Then there's this, which describes Tobit (Tobias) being among the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Tobit in the Dead Sea Scrolls

"Prior to the 1952 discovery of Aramaic and Hebrew fragments of Tobit among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave IV at Qumran, it was believed that Tobit was not included in the Jewish canon because of its late authorship, which was estimated to be circa 100 AD.[1] However, the Qumran fragments, which date from 100 BC to 25 AD and are in agreement with the Greek text existing in three different recensions, evidence a much earlier origin than previously thought.[1] These fragments evidence authorship no later than the 2nd Century BC, and thus at least contemporary to the date modern scholars ascribe to the final compilation of the Book of Daniel, which did attain canonical status." [2]

Also of note, the Book of Daniel includes the "apocryphal" chapters, but not the final one, which is accepted in the Hebrew/Protestant canon. This undermines the argument that these chapters were later additions

[1] Fitzmyer, Joseph A., "Tobit", (de Gruyter, 2003), Commentaries on early Jewish literature, ISBN 3-11-017574-6 pp. 55-57

[2] R. Glenn Wooden, "Changing Perceptions of Daniel: Reading Chapters 4 and 5 of Daniel," in From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith, Brackney & Evans eds., p. 10 (Mercer Univ.Press 2007) ISBN 0-88146-052-4.

4 posted on 10/28/2013 1:23:22 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Here is a link that completely refutes the claims of Catholicsm concerning this matter:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html

There are many references for further study ...

5 posted on 10/28/2013 1:26:04 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

wow, my bad. Thanks for correcting me.


6 posted on 10/28/2013 1:37:29 PM PDT by MNDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
I've been aware of the York Christian Apocrypha Symposium since I began reading about at PaleoJudaica, a weblog on ancient Judaism and its context, http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/

Being aware of the strong Christian readership at Free Republic I had thought of posting the information regarding the Christian Apocrypha Symposium as a courtesy to my fellow FReepers, but never got the chance.

Seeing your post provided the strong motivation to make the information available as a courtesy to my fellow FReepers.

Reading PaleoJudaica on a regular basis made me aware of the Symposium but only until seeing your post did I explore the links to the event towards posting it for the Christian community here at FR.

York Christian Apocrypha Symposium

About The Symposium
2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium

The 2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium, “Forbidden Texts on the Western Frontier: The Christian Apocrypha in North American Perspectives,” will take place at York University September 26–28, 2013.

The event is organized by Tony Burke (York University) in consultation with Brent Landau (University of Oklahoma). It brings together 22 Canadian and U.S. scholars to share their work and discuss present and future collaborative projects.

The symposium is open to scholars, students, and interested members of the public; all may register for the event and take part in discussions. One of the goals of the symposium is to make the work of North American scholars on the Christian Apocrypha more widely known, not only to scholars in cognate disciplines (such as New Testament Studies or Medieval Studies) but also to students, who will be the future scholars in the discipline, as well as to the wider public who is interested in the texts but has been ill-informed about them through films, novels, and fringe scholarship.

A detailed description of this year’s symposium can be found here.

http://tonyburke.ca/conference/

The 2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium in Retrospect: Part 1
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/2013/10/09/the-2013-york-christian-apocrypha-symposium-in-retrospect-part-one/

Apocryphicity
A weblog devoted to the study of the Christian Apocrypha

The 2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium in Retrospect: Part 2
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/2013/10/10/the-2013-york-christian-apocrypha-symposium-in-retrospect-part-two/

The 2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium in Retrospect: Part 3
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/2013/10/11/the-2013-york-christian-apocrypha-symposium-in-retrospect-part-three/

More Secret Scriptures 5: Pseudo-Memoirs of the Apostles
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/2013/07/23/more-secret-scriptures-5-pseudo-memoirs-of-the-apostles/

More Secret Scriptures 6: The Preaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/2013/07/29/more-secret-scriptures-6-the-preaching-of-simon-cephas-in-the-city-of-rome/

The Historical Jesus and the Christian Apocrypha Panel
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/2013/09/16/the-historical-jesus-and-the-christian-apocrypha-panel/

PaleoJudaica

Apocryphicity latest
TONY BURKE has some good new posts over at Apocryphicity.

First, more supplements to Secret Scriptures Revealed:

More Secret Scriptures 5: Pseudo-Memoirs of the Apostles.

More Secret Scriptures 6: The Preaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome.

The earlier posts in the series are noted here.

Second, Tony has been posting profiles of speakers for his upcoming conference “Forbidden Texts on the Western Frontier: The Christian Apocrypha in North American Perspectives” (September 26–28, 2013).

2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium Profiles: Brent Landau.
2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium Profiles: Lee McDonald.
2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium Profiles: Lorenzo DiTommaso.
2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium Profiles: Stephen Shoemaker.
2013 York Christian Apocrypha Symposium Profiles: F. Stanley Jones.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Apocryphicity latest
TONY BURKE has some good new posts over at Apocryphicity.

First, more supplements to Secret Scriptures Revealed:

More Secret Scriptures 5: Pseudo-Memoirs of the Apostles.

More Secret Scriptures 6: The Preaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome.

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2013_08_25_archive.html#7348581842057597553

York Symposium update
http://paleojudaica.blogspot.co.uk/2013_09_01_archive.html#1833360875109848101

7 posted on 10/28/2013 1:40:59 PM PDT by lbryce (Obama:The Worst is Yet To Come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Interesting. I had wondered why they were in the Catholic versions, but not others. Thanks for posting this.


8 posted on 10/28/2013 2:04:35 PM PDT by OldNewYork (Biden '13. Impeach now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNDude

“Kind of gives credibility to his claim.”

It does? How does the fact that one particular book out of dozens is NOT found in ONE PARTICULAR collection of books and fragments lend credence to a claim made by a German monk nearly 1500 years later?


9 posted on 10/28/2013 2:38:33 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldNewYork

Look in an Eastern Orthodox Bible and you’ll find them there. Among Christians only Protestants don’t have them.


10 posted on 10/28/2013 2:39:53 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Yes - let us ignore contradictions that the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books) introduce. Add to it the serious historical errors, and the radical departure from the rest of scripture on the use of magic, offering of money for the sins of the deceased, payment of money for forgiveness of sins, and other practices clearly against scripture.

Jesus seems to not include those books in His statement regarding the prophets (Luke 11:51).

Many ancient Jewish scholars rejected those additional books, and indeed those books were not recognized by the Jews of Christ’s time.

The vast majority of the “church fathers” of the first 4 centuries of church history rejected the Apocrypha.

One might make a reasonable offer that the Apocrypha can be used as a sort of picture into the inter-testamental period (between the end of the Old Testament and Christ’s advent). Much like the fiction of today that somewhat draws from the culture and events of the times can be a window in the future to our own time.

But scripture, the Apocrypha is not.


11 posted on 10/28/2013 2:45:39 PM PDT by TheBattman (Isn't the lesser evil... still evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Even that information gives too much credit to the Protestant argument

Like none.

Off with their heads. Burn the infidels!!!!!!

12 posted on 10/28/2013 2:51:05 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNDude
it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon.

For no reason, just because, without any thought or reason at all I am sure. lol.

This is quite hilarious.

13 posted on 10/28/2013 2:52:24 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

BUMP


14 posted on 10/28/2013 2:54:30 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; GarySpFc

Thanks for posting another divisive piece.

I will ask this question:

Where in the Apocrypha books is “Thus saith The Lord” (like all the other books of the OT minus Book of Esther) or God directly talking to someone with directives (like the Torah)?

A side note: Luther had good reason to question Esther based on the above entry argument. There is absolutely no mention of God in Esther.

So since I am not so well versed on the Apocrypha, please tell me the books where the above question is true.


15 posted on 10/28/2013 3:30:54 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

Quick debuking:
1. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

That all scripture is profitable does not follow that nothing which is not scripture is not profitable. But then, since the “apocrypha” were cited as scripture by the early Church Fathers, and by the New Testament itself, this assertion does not argue against the “apocyrpha.”

Along these lines, your reading of this scripture begs your argument, since Catholic Tradition is not the tradition of men, but rather Public Revelation, which has been preserved in the Tradition as well as in Scripture: “”Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” To make plain: Public Revelation is NOT the Tradition of men.

And there most certainly is a distinction between the Tradition of Men and the Tradition of teh Church: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 Thess 3:6) Indeed, the Gospel of John notes that Tradition is larger than the Scripture: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:” If it were not remembered, how could it be a sign?

2. Was the Apocrypha Ever Considered To Be Part of the Jewish Scripture?

The Aprocrypha are neither “the Prophets,” nor “The Law.” But then, neither are most of the Khetuvim, which is the class of books to which the apocrypha belong. Hence, there are few citations of the Khetuvim in the New Testament. Only AFTER Christ, did the Jews decide which books belonged to the Khetuvim, such as Josephus, whom you cite. And why did Jospehus reject the “apocrypha”? Josephus denied the existence of prophecy, a notion which is contradicted by Luke 2, Luke 4, John 1, Matthew 1, and Mark 1.

Meanwhile, your source tries desperately to erase the presence of the deuterocanonicals in the Qumran scrolls.

3. The Apocrypha Was Not Used as Inspired Scripture by the New Testament Writers

This simply is untrue. The original claim was that the Apocrypha were not used by Jesus in the gospels. The problem with this claim is that only a minority of Old Testament books were; Focusing on the books universally accepted by his Jewish audience, Jesus cites mostly Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Pslams, Isaiah, and Kings. This standard would cast doubt as to whether Joshua, Numbers, Job, Chronicles, Ruth, and several of the prophets were biblical, let alone most of the Wisdom books. The Epistles cite many other books, yet far from all of the Protestant canon, but they also cite 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom and Sirach.

4. The Patristic Writers Were Far From Unanimous in Their Use of the Apocrypha

This is kinda true; several Patristic writers were concerned with countering Jewish arguments, and therefore felt it unwise to cite as scripture books which the Jews did not regard as scripture.

5. The Majority of Early Christians Who Prepared Lists of the Old Testament Canon Specifically Excluded the Apocrypha

Look at the “majority” he cites: Not a one describes the Protestant canon, except for Jerome. The inclusion of Jerome always cracks me up. He specifically states his reason for excluding the deuterocanonical books was simply he had no Hebrew version to translate. And while I think you can reasonably infer from his introductions OUT OF CONTEXT the notion that he was stating that they were non-Canonical, he responded to this notion by stating it was obvious he upholds the Catholic faith which includes them and calls those who say he meant to suggest otherwise “fools and slanderers.”

But lets say Jerome actually recanted under pressure (which, contrary to Protestant implications, there is no historical record of). Suppose Jerome really did write those introductions having been convinced that they should be excluded. What does the episode tell us? That Jerome knew that his argument was counter the doctrine of the Catholic/Orthodox church at the time!

6. There is No Clear Evidence That the Apocryphal Books Were Even Included in the Septuagint Until the 3rd Century

The author holds that since the apocrypha were written, in part at least, after the 72 translators, then they could not have been part of the original translation. But the author misunderstands the history of the 72: Those translators are credited with having translated only the Pentateuch. The Septuagint, as a collected work, the one apon which the New Testament draws nearly of its OT citations, was completed much later; in fact, most modern authors consider the legend of the 72 translators to be completely legendary.

The Apocrypha Was Indeed Added to the Canon in 1546 by the Council of Trent as Specific Response to the Reformation

There was no canon to which the apocrypha did not belong, ever. Ecumenical councils only resolve doctrinal disputes once they have been disputed. There had never been any authoritative definition of the canon prior to the Council of Trent. How could this be? How could the church have lasted 1500 years without defining the canon at all? The simple answer is that the contents of the canon was a matter of Tradition, and only of Tradition. Here’s the self-negating core of Sola Scriptura: there is no definition of Scripture within Scripture! ONly when the Protestants risibly denied the canon did the Catholic Church have to definitely state what the canon was: before that, the canon was simply the collection of books used in mass.


16 posted on 10/28/2013 3:43:09 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dangus
That all scripture is profitable does not follow that nothing which is not scripture is not profitable. But then, since the “apocrypha” were cited as scripture by the early Church Fathers, and by the New Testament itself, this assertion does not argue against the “apocyrpha.”

I might have missed it. Where in the NT is the Apocrypha CITED?

17 posted on 10/28/2013 3:57:56 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

bump


18 posted on 10/28/2013 3:59:36 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; dangus; MNDude; dartuser; lbryce; OldNewYork; vladimir998; TheBattman; GeronL; ...

“1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the “Bible” of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.”


This is false. There is no evidence for the LXX including the apocrypha prior to the time of Jesus. In fact, we don’t even know when the Old Testament was translated into Greek. We only know that the Books of Moses were translated, some of them more than once, with the rest being translated at some later date, by unknown people. And as the article confesses for itself:

“These books and chapters were found in Bible manuscripts in Greek only, and were not part of the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, as determined by the Jews.”

Therefore, if the Jews did not regard these books as canonical, neither should we.

“2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.”


He says “almost all,” admitting that there was not a universal consensus of the fathers. But even that is still false, because the consensus was that these books were to be used for edification, but not for doctrine.

Athanasius on the apocrypha:

“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)

Rufinus on the Apocrypha:

“But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named ‘Apocrypha.’ These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 36, p. 557-558.).

Jerome on the Apocrypha

“These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.

You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures...Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).

What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater...”(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

Cardinal Cajetan calls them not “canonical for the confirmation of the faith,” but “canonical” only in a certain sense for the “edification of the faithful.”

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Official prefaces to Latin translations of the scripture making the same distinction:

“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)

“4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east.”


This is false. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were regional councils. The consensus in the west was, as Cardinal Catejan expressed, that of Jerome’s.

“5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.”


This is false. Keeping them out of the inspired canon is keeping with historical norms. And secondly, many of these books are known to have serious historical and geographical errors, as admitted by Rome itself. For example,

Here are RCC sources on the faux history of Judith:

From the Vatican website introduction to Judith:

“Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail. The story was written as a pious reflection on the meaning of the yearly Passover observance. It draws its inspiration from the Exodus narrative (especially Exodus 14:31) and from the texts of Isaiah and the Psalms portraying the special intervention of God for the preservation of Jerusalem. The theme of God’s hand as the agent of this providential activity, reflected of old in the hand of Moses and now in the hand of Judith, is again exemplified at a later time in Jewish synagogue art. God’s hand reaching down from heaven appears as part of the scene at Dura-Europos (before A.D. 256) in paintings of the Exodus, of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22), and of Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones (Eze 37).”

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PCP.HTM

And another, also official Catholic source:

“Judith is a dramatic fictional narrative...” “Because Judith is fiction replete with historical and geographical inaccuracies, it is difficult to date its composition.” (New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Nihil Obstat: Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., Imprimatur: Reverend William J. Kane, Vicar General, Diocese of Washington)

If even Rome does not believe in them, why should Protestants be badgered to accept them into the canon?

“9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.”


This is a boastful charge, but it doesn’t appear that the Papists can prove even these doctrines from the apocrypha, even if they were entered into the canon. They’re free to try, though.


19 posted on 10/28/2013 4:48:12 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else

Nice letter, Catholics must hate it

20 posted on 10/28/2013 4:58:36 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

“offering of money for the sins of the deceased”

Bingo.


21 posted on 10/28/2013 5:12:46 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

This would be a pitiful place to find oneself in. Without the Apocrypha, half of Catholicism’s beliefs and doctrines would vanish. So they MUST hold on to them, no matter how outrageous and full of deceit they hold. Pull themselves up by their bootstraps and hike further into the darkness.


22 posted on 10/28/2013 5:16:38 PM PDT by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

rebuttal on the Fathers: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html


23 posted on 10/28/2013 5:18:20 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

BTTT!


24 posted on 10/28/2013 5:18:26 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

That doesn’t happen these days. Why to you repeat such nonsense?


25 posted on 10/28/2013 5:22:03 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; All

“rebuttal on the Fathers: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html";


One that depends on ignorance, unfortunately. For example, he writes:

“However, as we will also see with St. Cyril of Jerusalem and others, the list of the canon is not all of inspired Scripture, and because books are excluded from the canon does not necessarily mean that they are not Scripture.”

Some of the fathers still called the apocrypha “scripture,” just not inspired scripture from which doctrines could be built. Hence the constant refrain “to be read, but not to be brought forward as a confirmation of the faith.” Or “not to be brought forward for doctrine.”

This is an important distinction which destroys modern Catholic claims. Catejan, a contemporary of Luther, as well as the Latin prefaces, gives the majority view of that age, which only changed later, despite the wailing of modern RCC Apologists.


26 posted on 10/28/2013 5:33:24 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Maybe the word “scripture” had a broader meaning in those days?


27 posted on 10/28/2013 5:34:44 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; CynicalBear; metmom; Iscool; Greetings_Puny_Humans; daniel1212
You know, FReerepublic is so blessed to have so many ambassadors for Christ, preaching daily the reconciliation God has offered to man, by the finished work of Christ. Day after day, the Body of Christ strives to be workmen that are approved unto God, preaching, teaching, reproving, rebuking, exhorting all to come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. And day after day, the enemy meets us at the gate, deceiving, corrupting and adding to or taking from God's word of truth.

Longsuffering is not an easy thing to practice. Especially in this time of satan's wrath, knowing his time is short. And to have to witness his handiwork poured out as "good news" or "the gospel" is heart breaking and maddening at the same time. Watching another gospel, another Jesus spoken of as the "true" religion can only be tolerated so long.

My prayers are for the Body of Christ. That God will open doors for us all, and give to us His longsuffering and the grace necessary to be effective ambassadors for the lost and effective warriors against the enemy. Our job isn't easy, but our reasons are pure.

28 posted on 10/28/2013 5:36:40 PM PDT by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“Maybe the word “scripture” had a broader meaning in those days?”


As did the word “canonical,” as Catejan makes clear. For example, at the ecumenical council of Trullo (I might be mispelling that name, going by memory) they called a vast array of books canonical, well and above what Rome accepts today. Yet people after that time period still differentiated in the use and value between the standard Old and New Testament and what we know today as the apocrypha, with no apparent feeling of contradiction.


29 posted on 10/28/2013 5:40:25 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

interesting


30 posted on 10/28/2013 5:42:07 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

SO Christianity has always been very diverse?

Shocking

:p


31 posted on 10/28/2013 5:42:37 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Of course it doesn’t happen these days. But it did when the decisions on canon were made.

It was relevant then.


32 posted on 10/28/2013 5:44:46 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“SO Christianity has always been very diverse?

Shocking

:p”


More diverse than you can possibly imagine. Roman Catholic claims about a unanimous agreement of the Fathers for their various doctrines is pure fantasy.


33 posted on 10/28/2013 5:44:51 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

As I suspected!


34 posted on 10/28/2013 5:52:02 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

I have to remind myself often that it is not I who call people to believe or open their hearts but that it is God. I must continue to simply put the truth of God’s word out there knowing that it will not return void.


35 posted on 10/28/2013 6:02:17 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Why the Apocryphal Books do not belong in the Bible.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/23.htm

36 posted on 10/28/2013 6:04:07 PM PDT by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
These books and chapters were found in Bible manuscripts in Greek only, and were not part of the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, as determined by the Jews.

Nuff said.....

37 posted on 10/28/2013 6:07:01 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; TNMountainMan; alphadog; infool7; Heart-Rest; HoosierDammit; red irish; fastrock; ...

“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (’The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.)

“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (Ibid.)

“Of very little worth is the Book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch might be.” (Ibid.)

“...the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” (’Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19.)

“If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle.” (’Pagan Servitude of the Church,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 352.)

“John records but few of the works of Christ, but a great deal of his preaching, whereas the other three evangelists record many of His works, but few of His words. It follows that the gospel of John is unique in loveliness, and of a truth the principal gospel, far, far superior to the other three, and St. Paul and St. Peter are far in advance of the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.” (’Preface to Romans,’ ed. Dillenberger, pp. 18-19.)

And he complained about the Book of Revelation: “to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character... Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.” (Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 203.)

And finally, he admitted adding the word ‘alone’ to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (’alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,’The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

“Jews are young devils damned to hell.” (’Luther’s Works,’ Pelikan, Vol. XX, pp. 2230.)


38 posted on 10/28/2013 6:09:12 PM PDT by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS
James Akin


When Catholics and Protestants talk about “the Bible,” the two groups actually have two different books in mind.
In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title “Apocrypha.”

Catholics refer to them as the “deuterocanonical” books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the “protocanonical” books (since their canonicity was established first).

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

Who Compiled the Old Testament?

The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are “apocryphal.” During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don’t belong in Scripture.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint.

The Apostles & the Deuteros

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, “It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine’s flesh. . . . [B]ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, ‘The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ‘ After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, ‘You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life’” (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).

One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection.

“The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], ‘I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,’” telling the last one, “Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers” (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29). This is but one example of the New Testaments’ references to the deuterocanonicals.

The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

The Fathers Speak

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.

Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

The Reformation Attack on the Bible

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that “The Jews don’t except these books.” In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

Rewriting Church History

In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church “added” these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent! Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.

It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures—testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.

He wrote, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.

Other writers Protestants cite as objecting to the deuterocanonicals, such as Athanasius and Origin, also accepted some or all of them as canonical. For example, Athanasius, accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39), and Origin accepted all of the deuterocanonicals, he simply recommended not using them in disputations with Jews.

However, despite the misgivings and hesitancies of a few individual writers such as Jerome, the Church remained firm in its historic affirmation of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture handed down from the apostles. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks that in spite of Jerome’s doubt, “For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405” (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

It is thus a complete myth that, as Protestants often charge, the Catholic Church “added” the deuterocanonicals to the Bible at the Council of Trent. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm, in the face of the new Protestant attack on Scripture, what had been the historic Bible of the Church—the standard edition of which was Jerome’s own Vulgate, including the seven deuterocanonicals!

The New Testament Deuteros

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament.

Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, “New Testament deuterocanonicals.”

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed!

THE FATHERS KNOW BEST: Old Testament Canon

During the Reformation, for largely doctrinal reasons Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament (1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and parts of two others (Daniel and Esther), even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53).

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals.

Also included are the earliest official canon lists. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the canon lists cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

(Note: Some books of the Bible have gone under more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. This confusing nomenclature is explained more fully in Catholic Bible commentaries.)

The Didache

“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Pseudo-Barnabas

“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Isa. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Epistle of Barnabas 6:7 [ca. A.D. 74]).

Clement

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Epistle to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!” (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).

Irenaeus

“Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]” (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [ca. A.D. 190]; Dan. 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Irenaeus

“Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36- 5:9]” (ibid. 5:35:1 [ca. A.D. 190]; Baruch was often reckoned as part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

Hippolytus

“What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah” (Commentary on Daniel 6 [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

Cyprian

“So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]” (Epistles 55:5 [A.D. 252]; Dan. 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Cyprian

“In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, “Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . . “’ [Gen 22:1-2] . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4].

Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’” [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21-23] (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Rome

“Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Augustine

“The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” (On Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [ca. A.D. 395]).

Augustine

“God converted [King Assuerus] and turned the latter’s indignation into gentleness [Es. 15:11]” (On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin 1:24:25 [A.D. 418]; this passage is not in the Protestant Bible).

Augustine

“We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (On the Care That Should be Taken for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

Council of Carthage

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Apostolic Constitutions

“Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius” (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [ca. A.D. 400]).

Jerome

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

Pope Innocent I

“A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . .” (To Exuperius 7 [A.D. 405]).

African Code

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . . Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, of these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church” (canon 24 [A.D. 419]).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm


39 posted on 10/28/2013 6:10:01 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Amen! Outstanding epistle.


40 posted on 10/28/2013 6:16:59 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

The strategy is clear. The more we respond to these inane postings, the more we have to repeat “milk” instead of feasting on meat. While our friends bury themselves in caucuses thus stifling debate. The very same tactics the Alinksy Obominations use in the political arena.


41 posted on 10/28/2013 6:25:29 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: narses

Your quotes are akin to Jews claiming your pope helped the Nazis.


42 posted on 10/28/2013 6:27:45 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
I know I don't say it often enough, but I am so glad to be part of this fellowship of believers here. I don't think I ever see anyone who is a "hand" but wants to be a "foot". We all seem to be content with what God has made and IS MAKING us to be. And helpful with each other. When one is down another is there to pick him up. What one may lack, another excels in, all there for one thing: To preach Christ's finished work and to glorify God. Grace and peace to all my sisters and brothers in Christ.

I'm not sure why this seems important right now, but it does. God Bless!

43 posted on 10/28/2013 6:30:10 PM PDT by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

You are ABSOLUTELY right, redleghunter! We cannot grow into a perfect man without feasting on the meat of God’s word. Thank you for the reminder!


44 posted on 10/28/2013 6:31:59 PM PDT by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | 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 "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible
How to Read the Bible – A Three Step Plan (written for Catholics - valid for all)
Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?
The Canon of Scripture [Ecumenical]
To understand Bible, one must understand its nature, pope says
Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ
Apostolic Authority and the Selection of the Gospels (Ecumenical)
The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
How Rediscovering the “Plot” of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization
The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
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

45 posted on 10/28/2013 6:38:00 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

I agree with all of your assertions. I’ve been amazed at times. It truly has been a blessing. Timely indeed!


46 posted on 10/28/2013 6:46:41 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

Really? My quotes are made up, false to fact manufactured slanders?


47 posted on 10/28/2013 6:52:39 PM PDT by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?

What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”

He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]


48 posted on 10/28/2013 6:53:11 PM PDT by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; All

“During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.”


This is an old claim and long discredited. EWTN needs to update their website.

“The Council of Jamnia or Council of Yavne is a hypothetical late 1st-century council at which the canon of the Hebrew Bible was alleged to have been finalized. First proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871, this theory was popular for much of the twentieth century. It was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and is no longer considered plausible.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

“The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. “


This is the same claim the article already made, which, as I mentioned before, is baseless. The only copies of the LXX we possess are Christian ones, which date long after the times of the Apostles. Secondly, they contain many books (or lack books) which the RCC considers canonical. Thirdly, that extra books were included says nothing, since the consensus of the Fathers was that many of the books of the Apocrypha (and some you no longer accept) are worthy to be read as profitable for Christians in terms of morality, but not to be used as a confirmation for religious doctrines, as I showed previously. Thus they can include these books happily, without any contradiction. Even Luther included the apocrypha, he simply separated them out according to historical norms.

“There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.”


This is a reference to 2 Maccabees, which, as a book, actually does not even claim to be inspired scripture, as the Roman Catholics would have it. It declares straight out that it is an abridged version of some other book, designed to be a history, and they apologize for any possible errors within it.

“...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have at-tempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement.” (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).

“...I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers...” 2 Maccabees 15: 39-40).

The rest of the claims, I think, are largely satisfied with what has already been provided, especially by one of their own Cardinals in Luther’s day. Anything else is simply revisionist history on the part of the RCC.


49 posted on 10/28/2013 6:56:08 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

50 posted on 10/28/2013 7:06:17 PM PDT by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last

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