Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books

philologos

What are your views of these. I think it's a shame that they were removed from the Canon of Protestantism. I have the NRSV Anglicised Apocrypha, and I was just reading Tobit, and Judith. These are messages of significant importance to all believers. What do you think of them?

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

What are your views of these. I think it's a shame that they were removed from the Canon of Protestantism. I have the NRSV Anglicised Apocrypha, and I was just reading Tobit, and Judith. These are messages of significant importance to all believers. What do you think of them?

I suppose the question is, why were they left out? They weren't considered part of inspired scripture by Gods people, so I think that while they can be used as a historical read, they can't be classed as inspired scripture. BTW, what messages did you thing were of 'signifigant importance'?

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

What are your views of these. I think it's a shame that they were removed from the Canon of Protestantism. I have the NRSV Anglicised Apocrypha, and I was just reading Tobit, and Judith. These are messages of significant importance to all believers. What do you think of them?

I don't think it is so much a case of them being removed from the Canon of Protestantism as that they were not part of the Canon of Judaism. These books did not constitute part of the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus affirmed, and they were certainly not a product of the Christian Church.

I looked up Wikipedia's summary of the book of Tobit, do you think this is accurate? If so, I'm missing how this is significant for genuine believers.

Wikipedia wrote:

The book tells the story of a righteous Jew of the Tribe of Naphtali named Tobit living in Nineveh after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel to Assyria in 721 BC under Sargon II. (The first two and a half chapters are written in the first person.) He was particularly noted for his diligence in attempting to provide proper burials for fallen Jews who had been slain by Sennacherib, for which the king seized all his property and exiled him. After Sennacherib's death, he was allowed to return to Nineveh, but again buried a dead man who had been murdered on the street. That night, he slept in the open and was blinded by bird droppings that fell in his eyes. This put a strain on his marriage, and ultimately, he prayed for death.

Meanwhile, in faraway Media, a young woman named Sarah prays for death in despair. She has lost seven husbands to the demon of lust -- Ashmodai (a demon frequently associated with homosexuality), who abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated. God sends the angel Raphael, disguised as a human, to heal Tobit and to free Sarah from the demon.

The main narrative is dedicated to Tobit's son, Tobiah or Tobiyah (Greek: Tobias), who is sent by his father to collect a sum of money that the latter had deposited some time previously in the far off land of Media. Raphael represents himself as Tobit's kinsman Azariah, and offers to aid and protect Tobias on his journey. Under the guidance of Raphael, Tobias makes the journey to Media. Along the way, he is attacked by a giant fish, whose heart, liver and gall bladder are removed to make medicines.

Upon arriving in Media, Raphael tells Tobias of the beautiful Sarah, whom Tobias has the right to marry, because she is related to his tribe. He instructs the young man to burn the fish's liver and heart to drive away the demon when he attacks on the wedding night. The two are married, and the fumes of the burning organs drive the demon away to Upper Egypt, while Raphael follows him and binds him. Meanwhile, Sarah's father has been digging a grave to secretly bury Tobias (who he assumes will be dead). Surprised to find his son-in-law alive and well, he orders a double-length wedding feast and has the grave secretly filled. Since he cannot leave because of the feast, Tobias sends Raphael to recover his father's money.

After the feast, Tobias and Sarah return to Nineveh. There, Raphael tells the youth to use the fish's gall to cure his father's blindness. Raphael then reveals his true identity and returns to heaven. Tobit sings a hymn of praise, and tells his son to leave Nineveh before God destroys it according to prophecy. After burying his father, Tobias returns to Media with his family.

philologos

Yes, that is true. The books were removed from the Jewish Canon circa 90AD according to someone I asked yesterday. So the books were part of the Canon at one point. The version in the Apocrypha is Greek, but Hebrew fragments were found at Qumran where the Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"I looked up Wikipedia's summary of the book of Tobit, do you think this is accurate? If so, I'm missing how this is significant for genuine believers."

There is more in relation to the depression of Sarah that I think could be inspirational to those who are looking for relief from suicidal tendencies. The book of Tobit also gives us a closer insight in some respects to what demons actually were.

Tobit 3:10 wrote:

On that day when she was grieved in spirit and wept. When she had gone up to her father's upper room, she intended to hang herself. But she thought it over and said, "Never shall they reproach my father, saying to him, 'You only had one daughter but she hanged herself because of her distress'. And I shall bring him down in his old age to Hades. It is better for me not to hang myself but to pray to the Lord that I may die and not listen to these reproaches anymore.

Tobit 3:16 wrote:

At that very moment the prayers of both of them were heard in the glorious presence of the Lord. So Raphael was sent to heal both of them: Tobit by removing the white films from his eyes, so that he might see God's light with his eyes; and Sarah daughter of Raguel by giving her in marriage to Tobias son of Tobit, and by setting her free from the wicked demon Asmodeus.

Also the narrative of the Apocrypha provides a bridge between the Old and New Testaments, if you look into the books of the Maccabees etc.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, that is true. The books were removed from the Jewish Canon circa 90AD according to someone I asked yesterday. So the books were part of the Canon at one point. The version in the Apocrypha is Greek, but Hebrew fragments were found at Qumran where the Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The apocryphal books were never part of the Jewish canon of scriptures in Israel (and therefore no part of the scriptures that Jesus endorsed), but Greek speaking Jews did begin bundling them together with the Scriptures. AD 90 was the Council of Jamnia which basically decided on behalf of Judaism that the Greek speakers were wrong to try to bring in such innovations and confirmed that the Jewish scriptures consisted of the 39 books currently contained in our Old Testament.

It is also worth noting that the apocrypha were not considered to be Scripture for the first 400 years of Christianity. So the Protestant reformers were actually seeking to get back to the same canon of Scripture as used by the early church.

The books may well be useful (although the details of Tobit sound a bit fishy to me) but then so are books such as Pilgrim's Progress, without elevating them to the status of Scripture.

Splendour

This subject of the Apocrypha is one of those 'grey areas' for Christians.
They were a part of the bible until the reformation and Luther took them out? They were added in by the Catholic church after the reformation? Which is it?

I have read that the Apocrypha was originally a part of the Jewish teaching and that Jesus himslf would have read from them-though he doesn't quote from any of these books in the new testament.
Although they are part of the Catholic bible, they are never read from during Mass-pressumably becasue Jesus didn't reflect on them.

I think they are historical documents and nothing more. Mind you, we could be wrong; Luther didn't put much value on some other books in the bible either and at one point considered removing having the Letter of James removed altogether!

philologos

I think it's the former, that Luther removed them. But that is open to discussion obviously.

Run_to_da_hills

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.

The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the true Christian church (Before the RC was founded).

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanies is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory that contradicts scripture.
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

This contradicts Luke 16:19-31 The Rich Man and Lazarus especially verse 26 "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed,so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence"

Basis for the docterine of salvation by works that contradict scripture.
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold, for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

This contradicts Ephesians 2 vs8–9 which says, ".For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,Not of works, lest any man should boast".

PDN

Splendour wrote: »

This subject of the Apocrypha is one of those 'grey areas' for Christians.
They were a part of the bible until the reformation and Luther took them out? They were added in by the Catholic church after the reformation? Which is it?

The Catholic Church added them in, but centuries before the Reformation. Then the Reformers (not just Luther) rejected them.

I have read that the Apocrypha was originally a part of the Jewish teaching and that Jesus himslf would have read from them-though he doesn't quote from any of these books in the new testament.

Jesus read from the Scriptures in Palestinian synagogues where the Scriptures were in Hebrew, not Greek, so these books would not have been included.

I think they are historical documents and nothing more. Mind you, we could be wrong; Luther didn't put much value on some other books in the bible either and at one point considered removing having the Letter of James removed altogether!

Good point. Luther did indeed dismiss James as an 'epistle of straw'. The Reformation, however, was a lot bigger than Luther, even though he was probably the most important catalyst for it, so thankfully most of his stupider ideas got junked and overruled by others.

PDN

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

I'm probably being pedantic here, but a few chapters of the Old Testament (Ezra 4.8–6.18 and 7.12–26, Jeremiah 10.11, Daniel 2.4–7.28) are written in Aramaic, not Hebrew.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

The books may well be useful (although the details of Tobit sound a bit fishy to me) but then so are books such as Pilgrim's Progress, without elevating them to the status of Scripture.

COI Articles of Religion wrote:

6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those
canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The First Book of Esdras, The Second Book of Esdras, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the greater & Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners;
but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees & The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them
Canonical.

I don't see any harm in regarding them in that light.

Splendour

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanies is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory that contradicts scripture.
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

This contradicts Luke 16:19-31 The Rich Man and Lazarus especially verse 26 "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed,so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence"

Basis for the docterine of salvation by works that contradict scripture.
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold, for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

This contradicts Ephesians 2 vs8–9 which says, ".For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,Not of works, lest any man should boast".

One could say that this...


James 2:14-17

Faith and Deeds
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

is contradictory to this...

Ephesians 2 vs8–9 which says, ".For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,Not of works, lest any man should boast".[/QUOTE]

My point being that scriptures contained in the 'reformed' bible can also appear to condradict each other.

I agree with you,as to the source of purgatory stemming from Maccabees-yet as I said in my previous post the Catholic church doesn't read from the Apocrypha at Mass (At least they didn't when I was a practising Catholic). Altough if they teach that one has died in a sinful state, I suppose there had to be an ancedote to this...

Ps. Apologies for my typo in previous post... :rolleyes:

BrianCalgary

Splendour wrote: »

One could say that this...


James 2:14-17

Faith and Deeds
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

is contradictory to this...

Ephesians 2 vs8–9 which says, ".For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,Not of works, lest any man should boast".

I like the fact that you say appear to contradict. In reality they don't. Ephesians clearly tells us that our faith saves us.

James explains that if your faith is not followed by works, ie. following Jesus commands, then your faith is dead.

You can do nothing and still be saved, but how could you face God?

Splendour wrote: »

Ps. Apologies for my typo in previous post... :rolleyes:

Could be banned for that.:D

Spyral

The real question is who even says that matthew mark luke and john belong in the gospel ?

Who says that they are infallable ?

Simply the Catholic church.

The first bible as we know it came in around 400AD it had all of the current protestant books & 2 apocryphal ones.

This was then revised again.

checked and checked some more before being made 100% infallable and unchangable.

Simply put if you accept the bible you must accept that the church put it together and to reject the apocrypha you might as well just remove any bits of the bible you dont like.

Luther had no authortiy to revise the bible.