/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>828329

I'm of the same stance as you (Nazarene). There isn't anything particularly insightful in them that you wouldn't find in the Hebrew scriptures. I like the book of Wisdom and Sirach the most for the ethical writings and proverbs. I don't consider them scripture, but that doesn't mean you can't learn anything. Maccabees should also be read by Christians, to get an understanding of the Intertestamental environment at least.

The main reason that they were included is because they were very common in copies of the Septuagint in the early church. It's more out of tradition that they are revered than some declaration of unique doctrine or anything like that.

But even then, the church fathers weren't of one accord on their canonicity. Not all of them agreed on which individual books should be held in high regard. Some even preferred the Hebrew/Protestant canon: Jerome was the most famous of them, despite having translated these other books for his Vulgate. He wasn't going to defy what church authorities wanted, despite having his personal opinions. Cyril of Jerusalem was another. It could be possible that these men were somewhat representative of a more Palestinian flavor of the church. Jerome studied with Jews and was a master at Hebrew.. so his preference for Hebrew scriptures would be obvious. Cyril, obviously from his name, was bishop of Jerusalem and was born in Palestine as well. Protestants especially took inspiration from Jerome's views and said as much.

>>828329

>Why is it that many of the Protestant denominatons removed these books and consider them non-canonical to the faith?

Literally because we can't find the manuscripts written in Hebrew, and you know how Protestants are…

We didn't remove them, we just never added them. The Roman Catholic church didn't canonize them until the counter reformation.

They are clearly not scripture if you only look at the doctrine within them. It is incompatible with the rest of the Bible.

>>828340

>They weren't cannon

They were in the Vulgate and every published bible up to the 1600s, which is pretty cannon buddy.

>>828362

>They were in the Vulgate

Yes and they're in protestant Bibles like the KJV too, just labeled "apocrypha"

<Jerome says Judith, Tobit, Maccabees not scripture: "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."–(Jerome, Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

A canon isn't what is literally printed, it's a list of which ought to be understood as scripture. There have been many different opinions on the canon, especially in the early church.

As a matter of history the roman church did not canonize the books until 1546 at Trent. You cannot argue for one moment that reformers removed them from the canon.

>>828329

People removed them because those books were too redpilled. Tobit is against miscegenation, Sirach says to not turn the other cheek to an evil person, and Maccabees tells the story of how the edomites became jews.

>>828364

He held the minority opinion against all of the other church fathers in believing that they shouldn't be canonical, but he nevertheless believed they were divinely inspired. He also admitted his error when the apocrypha was declared canon in 382AD.

>>828368

>He held the minority opinion against all of the other church fathers

Not so fast

<Athanasius condemns the apocryphal books as non-scripture: 2 "But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtility of certain men, and should henceforth read other books–those called apocryphal–led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books … There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews;

<Julius Africanus says the apocrypha book of Susanna is a forgery. "In your sacred discussion with Agnomon you referred to that prophecy of Daniel which is related of his youth. This at that time, as was meet, I accepted as genuine. Now, however, I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is spurious. For, in sooth, this section, although apart from this it is elegantly written, is plainly a more modern forgery. There are many proofs of this . . . But a more fatal objection is, that this section, along with the other two at the end of it, is not contained in the Daniel received among the Jews." (Julius Africanus, A Letter to Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna)

>(Jerome thought) they shouldn't be canonical, but he nevertheless believed they were divinely inspired

That's a contradiction

>He also admitted his error when the apocrypha was declared canon in 382AD.

He didn't even start work on the vulgate until 382 so that doesn't make sense

Citation? Are you thinking of a different event?

Anyone who wants a developed argument case against the apocrypha as scripture should read this:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm

Summary:

The books of the Apocrypha should not be considered as Holy Scripture because they do not give any evidence as being authoritative. Protestants deny the canonical status of these books on the basis of both internal and external evidence. This evidence includes the following.

First, the Apocrypha contains doctrines and practices that contradict what has been previously revealed in Scripture. Add to this the Apocrypha is never cited in the New Testament as Holy Scripture. This is in contrast to the canonical books - almost all of them are cited.

The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as being part of God's Word. For one reason, these books were written after God had ceased giving divine revelation. In these years God was not giving any authoritative word to His people.

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the manuscripts of the Septuagint proves nothing - we do not know the content of the Septuagint in pre-Christian times. Furthermore there is no evidence of a wider Alexandrian canon of Scripture. The Jews, wherever they lived, used the same Hebrew canon that did not include the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha was not on any early list of Christian books that were considered Scripture. While a few church fathers quoted them as authoritative, most did not. In addition, none of those fathers who cited the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture knew any Hebrew.

There is also the problem with the exact content of the Apocrypha. The books contained in the Apocrypha are not well defined - not everyone can agree on which books are authoritative.

Augustine, while a great thinker, did not read Hebrew and knew very little Greek. Furthermore he accepted the fanciful account of the origin of the Septuagint. Jerome, a real Hebrew scholar rejected the books outright.

Many Roman Catholic scholars, to the time of the Protestant Reformation, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

While some Protestants make some use of the Apocrypha it has always been rejected as Scripture.

Another major problem for the Apocrypha is demonstrable historical errors in it. This is not consistent with God's Word being error-free. Furthermore there is no evidence in these books of divine authority - fulfilled prophecy is lacking. Add to this there is no claim within the books of God's authority.

Finally we have the testimony of Jesus. He said the Scriptures were true and could not be broken. However the Apocrypha was not Scripture to Him. Since neither the Jews, Jesus, or His apostles considered these writings as part of the Old Testament neither should we.

We conclude that the present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are the complete Scripture that God has given us. There are no other divinely authoritative books of Scripture that belong to the Old Testament.

>>828374

>For one reason, these books were written after God had ceased giving divine revelation. In these years God was not giving any authoritative word to His people.

I don't think the Apocrypha is inspired, but this isn't exactly true. It's that there weren't any prophets. But prophets were only one element of the Word of God. The Temple and Levitical priesthood were even more important. Which is why Jesus' warning of their destruction caused them to lose their minds.

I'm a Protestant myself, but that's my only complaint with Protestant scholarship about this period. Where Judaism is often painted as prophet centric and this intertestamental period is always painted as a dark age for lack of them. The true dark age came when the temple was destroyed.

>>828364

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

The Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366–384) reads thus:

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, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. 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 [i.e. Sirach] one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Amos one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.

Yeah, I can absolutely argue that reformers removed them from cannon.

>>828376

I'm not understanding your objection, you think it's wrong to say special revelation won't continue even without prophets?

>>828389

If you would like to hear the developed arguments you need to read the article and not just the summary

>>828391

Is there a primary source on vatican.va or something? the wikipedia citation is a blog

I am not arguing that people previously did not view the apocrypha as scripture, I'm arguing that it was not in use for those reformers and they did not remove it. The opinion of that council is a good reference point in history but it only shows the opinion of those present and those for whom they represent.

This was not one of the seven ecumenical councils.

Why did Trent make it's many declarations? Because there wasn't an existing declaration of the sort.

pet peeve, please stop spelling "cannon", it's "canon"

Still, the question "did the reformers remove the apocrypha or didn't they" is secondary to "Does the apocrypha belong in scripture". I would not have a problem if they did. Reformers obviously removed many things, some of which I affirm and some I reject.

>>828393

>I'm not understanding your objection, you think it's wrong to say special revelation won't continue even without prophets?

It's just a caveat to your post. I wasn't trying to diminish the overall gist or anything about the apocrypha. I'm just saying that I often run across commentary that paints the intertestamental period as lacking the Word of God. We, as Protestants, are very scripture centric, and can't help but look at the book of "Malachi" as being some sort of unofficial "end" to the Old Testament. But Judaism was not just centered on scripture as the only means of divine revelation. The oracles of God were still around in the priests and temple. It was happening every time, every a year, when a priest officiated. And it's no coincidence that it was also a Levite who was the last great oracle before our Lord (John the Baptist). Simeon and John's father (Zechariah) were also others. Losing this Levitical element in AD 70 was the real death knell for Judaism.

>>828329

>Though, I haven't read it myself yet.

Read them and you should understand exactly why we don't take the deuterocanonical books seriously.

The books weren't "removed", they were never considered canon in the first place until Rome declared them canon as part of the counter-Reformation in a bid to try to give scriptural basis to some of their doctrines.

>>828408

>From what I'm understanding here, they were always included in the Bible, though in a separate section, throughout history. But it sounds like a relatively recently that these books were removed altogether from the Bible

When you say "the Bible" you can either be referring to the canon of scripture or the physical printed book.

They were not part of "the Bible" to the KJV translators, but those translators also translated these books and they were printed inside Bibles with the label "apocrypha".

Just to clarify, if you didn't already get this.

Publishers aren't being subversive or anything if they don't include apocryphas in their editions, many translations don't even translate the apocrypha. In the same way it's not subversive for cheap pocket bibles to just include the Psalms, Proverbs, and the new testament.

>>828410

>When you say "the Bible" you can either be referring to the canon of scripture or the physical printed book.

Yes, I'm referring to the physical printed book in that sense, not the canon of the scripture. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

>>828393

I actually did read that article a long time ago when disputing this with my Proestent girlfriend haha.

I respect your perspective on this matter. It's righteous to test all things and hold fast to what is true. I think some of those arguments (e.g. Jerome's perspective and the "Hebrew only" scholars) are good, others I think are easily undone (e.g. historical accuracy and "let's accept the teaching of the Jews 100 years after Christ").

It ultimately comes down to your belief on councils and Magistrate authority. For me, I look at Paul's letters - so many of them were against people who rejected the council of Jerusalem and disregarded the (then) Church Magistrate's teaching on the Mosaic covenant being forced on gentiles. Repeatedly he says "you must keep the traditions we taught you either orally or in writing. (2 Thes 2:15)." This was a decree from the seat of Peter that was later confirmed by a council. If you disagree with Trent, IMO you're acting like the people Paul was writing against in the Galatians, the Thessalonians, etc since these people wree basically doing the same thing.

In the early reformation, those books were always in the bibles. Reformers disputed their canonical, but the earliest (and greatest) of them did not have the audacity to remove them and then claim "the Catholic Church added them!" A lot of this mentality came through Anti-Catholic sentiment and clouded their ability to engage with books that have helped believers for over a thousand years.

In the Orthodox church, they don't even teach a "fixed closed cannon" but rather speak of the list of inspired writings having "frayed edges like waves." This is a sensible understanding when you consider the whole history of biblical cannon. You have Enoch and the Assumption of Moses being quoted in the bible. You have Clement's Letter to the Corintihans, Barnabus's weird epsitle, and 3/4 Esdras being considered cannonical at some point. So reconciling a fixed cannon can be difficult because you then have to admit a lot of "uninspired" writings were cannon for lengthy periods of time.

At the end of the day it becomes "who has the authority to determine cannon and scripture?" And it was in many cases it becomes one man or one faction's doing. Somebody decides those books aren't cannon, a later follower removes the books from the bible, a later follower removes the cross references from the indentations, and eventually you get a generation who believe "these books are the only authoritative bible and God's preserved word" despite many others carrying the way and creating many saints.

So yes, reformers did remove their cannonocity, then remove the books from the bible, then remove the cross references, then say "this is the only true bible!" Maybe not all at once, maybe not one guy, but throughout time this is what the reformers did, and they did it mostly because they could not debate theology based on sola scriptura if these books were cannon. You can't pin this on church fathers or ancient scholars. Plain and simple, people removed these books and any reference to them because they could not debate against the content within them.

>>828481

Reasonable discussion until your summary

Please please drop the extra n in canon

>It ultimately comes down to your belief on councils and Magistrate authority.

Yes

>If you disagree with Trent, IMO you're acting like the people Paul was writing against in the Galatians, the Thessalonians, etc since these people wree basically doing the same thing.

Paul's apostolic authority was legitimate, Rome's was not

>did not have the audacity to remove them and then claim "the Catholic Church added them"

Are you missing the whole discussion until now?

If they weren't recognized as Canon, they weren't added. Trent unambiguously added them. That was their choice, and we dispute it.

>At the end of the day it becomes "who has the authority to determine cannon(sic) and scripture?"

The correct answer is nobody. Everyone can evaluate the evidence for themselves. It rests on nobody's authority.

>Plain and simple, people removed these books and any reference to them because they could not debate against the content within them.

What a strawman

>>828481

>At the end of the day it becomes "who has the authority to determine cannon and scripture?"

From the Christian perspective there is only one correct answer to that question: God. God determines the canon of scripture when He inspires it. Nobody else. No man has the right to dictate to God what books he may and may not inspire.

>>828408

>Were all of the church fathers doubtful of its relevance of just a few outspoken individuals?

There'd always be a little bit of variance here and there among church fathers from what we know, and I wouldn't say Jerome's views were exactly too outspoken. Those who wanted him to add more books from the Septuagint simply wanted to do it out of tradition - their various congregations had been he used to some readings from the LXX. Only one was known to make a more serious argument: Augustine. He didn't appreciate that Jerome even wanted to translate from the Hebrew at all. He wanted Jerome to do a straight translation of the Vulgate (and Augustine's idea of canon also was a factor here).

>>828517

Type: "he [Augustine] wanted Jerome to do a straight translation of the Septuagint".

>>828510

Good clarification

Any book was or wasn't inspired at the time of writing, and it's our task to identify which.

It's actually not a hard task because the work has already been done for us.