Conference yukon::christian_v7

>>It is a fact that the Bible in use at the time Revelation was written included
>>books which the Jews later rejected.

        Please provide irrefutable sources showing that the collection of
        letters and scrolls comprising the early bible used by early new
        testament churches *ALWAYS* included the Apocrypha.

	Please show us references to Apocryphal verses made in any of the
	66 books of the Bible.

        If you have time, please detail how the Apocrypha are congruent
        with Scripture by addressing any inconsistencies in the Apocrypha
        with supporting Scripture from books outside of the Apocrypha.

	Tony
	

                               Apocryphal books
-Dake p. 511

  In some large family Bibles there is a section of 14 books called the
  Apocrypha - a group of spurious books that were rejected from our
  present canon of Scripture because they did not pass the tests required
  of inspired books:

  1) They were not written or approved by a prophet

  2) They were not recognized by the Jews, as inspired and a part of
  Scripture

  3) They were not recognized or quoted by Christ and the apostles, a
  fact that is more striking when we realize that Paul even quoted twice
  from heathen poets

  4) The last OT prophet predicted that the next messenger coming to
  Israel from God would be the forerunner of Christ (Mal 3:1).  Most of
  the Apocryphal books were written during the period between Malachi and
  Christ.

  5) Divine authority is not claimed by their authors, and by some it is
  virtually disowned (2 Macc 2:23; 15:38)

  6) The books contain statements at variance with the Bible History

  7) They are self-contradictory and, in some cases, opposed to doctrines
  of Scripture.

  8) Josephus, who lived at the time of the apostles, did not regard the
  Apocryphal books as Scripture.  He stated that the OT books (the ones
  in our present version) were the only inspired writings (See Josephus,
  Book I, section 8).

  9) The Apocryphal books were not a part of the ancient versions of
  Scripture.  They were first added after 300 AD.  The Laodecian Council
  in 363 AD rejected them and being uninspired, thus proving that by that
  time some were claiming inspiration for them. (They first appeared in
  the Vatican version of the 4th century.  At the Council of Trent in
  1546 AD Catholics accepted 6 of these books as inspired and added them
  to their modern version of Scripture.  They are: Wisdom of Solomon,
  Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees).

  10) Philo and others did not regard the Apocryphal books as inspired.

  11) There is a lack of prophetic element in them; and there is an
  apparent imitation of the inspired OT books.

  12) They show too free use of the imagination, which has given rise to
  silly stories, and the lack of spiritual force and power.

>In some large family Bibles there is a section of 14 books called the
>Apocrypha - 

>At the Council of Trent in 1546 AD Catholics accepted 6 of these books as
>inspired and added them to their modern version of Scripture.  They are:
>Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees).

Dake's information is incorrect:

	1. The Council of Trent did not add them, but rather declared
	   that Protestants were wrong to remove most of them.

	2. Three of the 14 books were placed in an Appendix -- these three
	   are 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.  They are not usually
	   included in modern Roman Catholic Bibles, but together with all
	   of the books of the King James bible will be found in Anglican
	   bibles.

	3. In addition to the six books listed by Dake, Roman Catholic bibles
	   include books which the King James Bible calls:  Additions to
	   Esther, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of
	   Susanna, Bel and the Dragon.

/john

>>At the Council of Trent in 1546 AD Catholics accepted 6 of these books as
>>inspired and added them to their modern version of Scripture...
>
>Dake's information is incorrect:
>
>	1. The Council of Trent did not add them, but rather declared
>	   that Protestants were wrong to remove most of them.

You say that it is "incorrect" that Dake says "added" and Protestants
removed.  I say it sounds more like a matter of preferrential 
perspective *IF* those pieces were in the Bible from 363 to 1546
consistently.  Not being a student of such things, I wouldn't know;
I only provided my source as you have done yours.

Thanks, John.

>You say that it is "incorrect" that Dake says "added" and Protestants
>removed.  I say it sounds more like a matter of preferrential 
>perspective *IF* those pieces were in the Bible from 363 to 1546
>consistently.  Not being a student of such things, I wouldn't know;

Those pieces were consistently in the Bible until even later than 1546.

They were part of both the Vulgate (Latin) and Septuagint (Greek) bibles.
They were part of Martin Luther's translation (he is responsible for
putting them in a separate section) and were part of the King James bible.

/john

>  The Apocryphal books were not a part of the ancient versions of
>  Scripture.  They were first added after 300 AD.  The Laodecian Council
>  in 363 AD rejected them and being uninspired, thus proving that by that
>  time some were claiming inspiration for them. (They first appeared in
>  the Vatican version of the 4th century.

While you and I have quibbled over whether Catholics added or Protestant
subtracted, this quote was left out.  By your reckoning, this must be
misinformation.  Surely we can find out what the Laodecian Council
approved as Canon, correct?

Mark

>They were part of Martin Luther's translation (he is responsible for
>putting them in a separate section)
    
    If I recall correctly, Luther preceded these books with a note saying
    that he did not regard them to be part of the inspired canon of
    scripture, but that they were important writings to be considered. 
    (Perhaps someone can supply a more accurate quote.)
    
    Mark L.

>The Laodecian Council in 363 AD rejected them and being uninspired, ...

I'll see your Laodecian Council and raise you the Hippo and Carthage
councils of about the same time, which accepted them as inspired.

I'm amused that Dake considers the Laodecian council authoritative.
It's not a very well known council, and certainly was not ecumenical;
thus I suspect it has about as much authority as this conference.  :-)
I think I'm with the other Dake nay-sayers w.r.t. his scholarship.

>If I recall correctly, Luther preceded these books with a note saying
>that he did not regard them to be part of the inspired canon of
>scripture, but that they were important writings to be considered. 
>(Perhaps someone can supply a more accurate quote.)

In my copy of his translation, he introduces these books with:

  "Apokrypha.  Das sind B�cher, die der Heiligen Schrift nicht
   gleichzuhalten und doch n�tzlich und gut zu lesen sind."

Which means:  "Apocrypha.  These are books, which are not to be held
equal to Holy Scripture, but which are nonetheless useful and good
to read."

/john

>I think I'm with the other Dake nay-sayers w.r.t. his scholarship.

Understandable, John.  ;-)

->>>  Useful and good to read  <<<-  does not equal Canon.

So much for Luther's support of the apochrypha.

>So much for Luther's support of the apocrypha.

Luther also wanted to remove some of the 27 books of the New
Testament.

> Luther also wanted to remove some of the 27 books of the New
> Testament.

    Luther, who did *much* to bring to light again the doctrine of
    salvation through grace _alone_, had an especially hard time with the
    epistle of James, because of James emphasis on the _demonstration_ of
    faith by works.  I remember hearing that Luther referred to James
    as "a right chary epistle".
    
    Mark L.

�    as "a right chary epistle".

I heard he referred to it as 'an epistle of straw', but doubtless these are 
just variations in translation.  Rob?  You there?  Got the original ? ;-)

								Andrew

.63> Title: Why accept Luther over Augustine?
                                 
More to the point: why did you use him as a reference in the first place?

Suggestion:  some notes back we got onto the Apocrypha.  I suggest a new note
topic about the Apocrypha.  I'd like to know, although I'm not too keen
on duking out whether the difference in the 6 more books of the Catholic
Bible are Canon or not.  

� Suggestion:  some notes back we got onto the Apocrypha.  I suggest a new note
� topic about the Apocrypha.  

Feel free...  Your summary made a good starter.  I feel uncomfortable 
with these pseudo-scriptures.  It's good to clarify where they can help,
and where they are a danger.

							Andrew

re:0

    Just a couple things I noticed that don't seem correct.

>  2) They were not recognized by the Jews, as inspired and a part of
>  Scripture

    The Apocrypha or seven books of the Old Testament are those of the
    Septuagint Bible. The Septuagint was used by Greek speaking Jews and was
    most certainly recognized by Jews prior to Christianity. Research by
    both Catholic and Protestant scholar's suggest that the early Church 
    used the Septuagint.

>  3) They were not recognized or quoted by Christ and the apostles, a
>  fact that is more striking when we realize that Paul even quoted twice
>  from heathen poets

     80% of the New Testaments citations and allusions to the Old Testament
     were taken from the Septuagint.

    Jim

Richard, what .1 says to me is this:

(1) The seven (or six; what's the number) books of the Apocrypha were
    part of the Septuigint
(2) 80%  of the New Testaments citations and allusions to the Old Testament
     were taken from the Septuagint.

But point #2 does not say whether Christ quoted from the books in point #1.
You state point one as fact, and tie the two together as if quoting from
the book of Exodus in the Septuigint was the same as quoting from "Judith"
in the Spetuigint.  The two are not logically linked.

But we can see what we can find out about your point #1.

MM

    Notes 214.3 - 214.16 were moved here from note 203 (Infant Baptism) to
    here, the topic created to discuss the apocrypha.
    
    Mark L -- co-mod

>In some large family Bibles there is a section of 14 books called the
>Apocrypha - 

>At the Council of Trent in 1546 AD Catholics accepted 6 of these books as
>inspired and added them to their modern version of Scripture.  They are:
>Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees).

Dake's information is incorrect:

	1. The Council of Trent did not add them, but rather declared
	   that Protestants were wrong to remove most of them.

	2. Three of the 14 books were placed in an Appendix -- these three
	   are 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.  They are not usually
	   included in modern Roman Catholic Bibles, but together with all
	   of the books of the King James bible will be found in Anglican
	   bibles.

	3. In addition to the six books listed by Dake, Roman Catholic bibles
	   include books which the King James Bible calls:  Additions to
	   Esther, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of
	   Susanna, Bel and the Dragon.

/john

>.63> Title: Why accept Luther over Augustine?
>                                 
>More to the point: why did you use him as a reference in the first place?

Because it was his canon of scripture which held for over 1100 years, as
opposed to other canons which excluded some or all of the books called
apocrypha and books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Song of Solomon,
and Hebrews.

/john

>The Laodecian Council in 363 AD rejected them and being uninspired,

I can't find any reference to the Laodecian Council in the Encyclop�dia
Britannica.  It's certainly not an ecumenical council, and thus has no
more authority than the councils of Hippo and Carthage, around the same
time, which declared that the books were inspired.

>10) Philo and others did not regard the Apocryphal books as inspired.

Nor did Philo and others regard Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as inspired.

/john

But, John,  if Luther's canon said that these books were only "useful
and good to read" which is not the same as saying "these are inspired
Scripture", then how does all this jibe with the various "council"
canons.

And how about the tests applied to the apochryphal books?  Are they
applicable or are they not?  Specifically:

>  1) They were not written or approved by a prophet

True or untrue?

>  5) Divine authority is not claimed by their authors, and by some it is
  virtually disowned (2 Macc 2:23; 15:38)

True or untrue?

>  6) The books contain statements at variance with the Bible History

>  7) They are self-contradictory and, in some cases, opposed to doctrines
>  of Scripture.

>  8) Josephus, who lived at the time of the apostles, did not regard the
>  Apocryphal books as Scripture.  He stated that the OT books (the ones
>  in our present version) were the only inspired writings (See Josephus,
>  Book I, section 8).

Et cetera.

You pull out some of Dake's comments, which I'm all too happy to allow
for room (given some current discussion about him), but nevertheless,
these other criteria seem to have some merit as to the test of 
inspired Scripture versus someone's sermon notes or magazine article
(which can be inspired, but no necessarily part of Scripture).

Here's what Dake said about Hippo and Carthage:

"By the beginning of the 4th century all 27 books of the present NT had
been received by most churches; and by the end of that century they had been
received by all churches without further doubt.  There being many in those
days who were writing novels and fantastic stories about Jesus Christ, His
life and His parents, and other Bible characters it became a problem
for the early church to decide which books were inspired.  The question
was finally settled at the Council of Nice, 325 A.D., Hippo, 394 A.D.,
and Carthage 397 A.D.  One can therefore wholeheartedly reject the so-called
lost books of the Bible (p. 92*) and the Apocrypha, and being uninspired."

-----------

The following is more onthe canonization of some of the questioned books:
(Reprint from a previous conference note)

The Canon of Scripture means the complete collection of books which are
regarded as of Divine authority. The Canon of Scripture was at first gradual
and not created by ecclesiastical authority.  The beginning was made by Moses.
In David's time the office of recorder was established and detailed records
were kept by all the Kings of Israel.  The final collection of writings and the
Canon of the Old Testament was compiled during the time of Ezra, Nehemiah...
about 292 to 289 B.C.

[All the Jews accepted these writings as the Holy Scriptures.  Moses wrote
the first five books, and many prophets of God wrote other books.  They were
collected and made up the volume we know as the Old testament.]

Of the 8 authors who wrote the 27 books of the New Testament, not one ever
suggested that he was adding to a collection of holy Scriptures; nevertheless,
the New Testament books written by the apostles and other inspired men were
soon held to be as sacred ad inspired as the Old Testament books; and together,
they became the rule of faith for the church.

In the formation of the New Testament, 20 out of 27 were universally
accepted immediately as genuine.  Only Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude,
James, and Revelation were questioned by some.  The main objections were that
Hebrews did not bear the name of its author; 2 Peter differed from 1 Peter in
style; the writers of James and Jude called themselves servants instead of
apostles; and the writer of 2 and 3 John called himself an elder instead of an
apostle.  The book of Revelation was questioned because of its peculiar
character.  After deliberate examination, however, these books were also
received as genuine and authentic.

Mark

Dake's comments about Hippo and Carthage are interesting, because the
Encyclop�dia Britannica says that these councils considered the Apocrypha
to be canonical.

/john

Okay, so we're faced with the compilers of the Encyclopedia Britannica,
and whatever sources Dake used to make his statement -  anyone got any 
correllary support out there?

Where are the seminary and bible history students?
Check your (other) encyclopedia's tonight, folks.  (You, too, John,
if you have access to another encyclopedia set.

Beacon Bible Commentary anyone? etc etc.

>>  5) Divine authority is not claimed by their authors, and by some it is
>  virtually disowned (2 Macc 2:23; 15:38)
>
>True or untrue?

Do we eliminate every book which does not claim divine authority?
To the claim that Maccabees virtually disowns inspiration:

      2:23: all this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyrene in
	five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book.

     15:38: If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself
	desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best
	I could do.

That certainly doesn't deny divine inspiration.  Something need not be
original to be inspired (the condensation may have been inspired, by
giving us the parts that are relevant to the history of salvation);
someone may show humility when working with God given inspiration.

>  6) The books contain statements at variance with the Bible History
>  7) They are self-contradictory and, in some cases, opposed to doctrines
>  of Scripture.

Specifics, please?

/john

>Specifics, please?

Points well taken, John.  As we discussed just a few minutes ago in my
office.

But let us both do a little more homework, since all we have so far is
Finis Dake and E. Britannica at odds.

It DOES hit at the point as to WHAT criteria is (should be used) to 
verify/determine inspiration.  As I said to you, the six extra books
in the Catholic Bible (what happened to the other 8?), wouldn't make
a lick of difference to my faith, but it *WOULD* if any of these were
found to be historically inaccurate or at variance with accepted Scripture
in any place.  That's what I'd like to know.  I'm familiar with the 66 books,
not the 72.

Further, let us all be careful not to make this into a Catholic versus 
Protestant "problem" between us.  There enough heresy to fight in the
world without some of the smaller (give or take) differences we have in
understanding.

Mark

>the six extra books in the Catholic Bible (what happened to the other 8?)

Three of the 14 books were placed in an Appendix by the decree of Trent --
these three are 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.  They are not
usually included in modern Roman Catholic Bibles, but together with all
of the books of the King James bible will be found in Anglican bibles.

The five books which the King James Bible calls "Additions to
Esther", "The Song of the Three Holy Children", "The History of
Susanna", and "Bel and the Dragon" appear integrated with Esther
and Daniel.

"Additions to Esther" is particularly interesting.  It consists of Greek
text added to the book of Esther, which, without these additions, does
not even contain any reference to God at all.  When Jerome translated
the Greek bible into Latin, he sifted these out and placed them at the
end of Esther, even though they appear in six different places in the
text.  Thus they end up with higher numbered verses than the rest of
the text, since the division of the Bible into chapters and verses was
a fairly late development.  This practice was followed in Roman Catholic
Latin bibles, but more modern bibles place these in their proper places
within the text.

"The Song of the Three Holy Children" is inserted into Daniel between
3:23 and 3:24, and Susanna and Bel form chapters 13 and 14 of the Greek
version of Daniel.

/john

This is an example of text from The Song of the Three Holy Children (in the
fiery furnace), verses 29-34, which is heavily used in services of Morning
Prayer in Anglican churches.  As a child I probably sang this canticle a
few hundred times:

	Blessed art thou, O Lord God of our fathers;
	  praised and exalted above all for ever.
	Blessed art thou for the name of thy Majesty;
	  praised and exalted above all for ever.
	Blessed art thou in the temple of thy holiness;
	  praised and exalted above all for ever.
	Blessed art thou that beholdest the depths,
	and dwellest between the Cherubim;
	  praised and exalted above all for ever.
	Blessed art thou on the glorious throne of they kingdom;
	  praised and exalted above all for ever.
	Blessed art thou in the firmament of heaven;
	  praised and exalted above all for ever.

The Song of the Three Holy Children continues (vv 35-65) with this Song of
Creation, also frequently used (but less so than the previous) in Anglican
worship:

O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.
O ye angels of the Lord, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

O ye heavens, bless ye the Lord;
  O ye waters that be above the firmament, bless ye the Lord;
O all ye powers of the Lord, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

O ye sun and moon, bless ye the Lord;
  O ye stars of heaven, bless ye the Lord;
O ye showers and dew, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

O ye winds of God, bless ye the Lord;
  O ye fire and heat, bless ye the Lord;
O ye winter and summer, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

O ye dews and frosts, bless ye the Lord;
  O ye frost and cold, bless ye the Lord;
O ye ice and snow, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

O ye nights and days, bless ye the Lord;
  O ye light and darkness, bless ye the Lord;
O ye lightnings and clouds, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

O let the earth bless the Lord;
  O ye mountains and hills, bless ye the Lord;
O all ye green things upon the earth, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

O ye wells, bless ye the Lord;
  O ye seas and floods, bless ye the Lord;
O ye whales and all that move in the waters, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

O all ye fowls of the air, bless ye the Lord;
  O all ye beasts and cattle, bless ye the Lord;
O ye children of men, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

O ye people of God, bless ye the Lord;
  O ye priests of the Lord, bless ye the Lord;
O ye servants of the Lord, bless ye the Lord;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.
O ye spirits and souls of the righteous, bless ye the Lord;
  O ye holy and humble men of heart, bless ye the Lord.

Let us bless the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost;
  praise him and magnify him for ever.

			--Ancient Jewish hymn of praise attributed to
			  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (with Christian coda).

The following is verses 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 11-15 of the Prayer of Manasseh,
which is recommended by the new (1979) Book of Common Prayer to be used
in Lent at Morning Prayer on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and at
Evening Prayer on Mondays:

	O Lord and Ruler of the hosts of heaven,
	  God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
	  and of all their righteous offspring:
	You made the heavens and the earth,
	  with all their vast array.
	All things quake with your presence;
	  they tremble because of your power.
	But your merciful promise is beyond all measure;
	  it surpasses all that our minds can fathom.
	O Lord, you are full of compassion,
	  long-suffering, and abounding in mercy.
	You hold back your hand;
	  you do not punish as we deserve.
	In your great goodness, Lord,
	you have promised forgiveness to sinners,
	  that they may repent of their sin and be saved.
	And now, O Lord, I bend the knee of my heart,
	  and make my appeal, sure of your gracious goodness.
	I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned,
	  and I know my wickedness only too well.
	Therefore I make this prayer to you:
	  Forgive me, Lord, forgive me.
	Do not let me perish in my sin,
	  nor condemn me to the depths of the earth.
	For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent,
	  and in me you will show forth your goodness.
	Unworthy as I am, you will save me,
	in accordance with your great mercy,
	  and I will praise you without ceasing all the days of my life.
	For all the powers of heaven sing your praises,
	  and yours is the glory to ages of ages.  Amen.

This is an example of text from 2 Esdras, 2:42-48, recommended for use as a
first reading at celebrations of the Eucharist for "The Common of a Martyr
I" (one of three recommended readings for martyrs who, unlike e.g. St. James,
do not have specific readings of their own):

	I, Ezra, saw on Mount Zion a great multitude that I could
	not number, and they all were praising the Lord with songs.
	In their midst was a young man of great stature, taller
	than any of the others, and on the ehad of each of them
	he placed a crown, but he was more exalted than they.
	And I was held spellbound.  Then I asked an angel, "Who
	are these, my lord?"  He answered and said unto me,
	"These are they who have put off mortal clothing and
	have put on the immortal, and have confessed the name
	of God.  Now they are being crowned and receive palms."
	Then I said to the angel, "Who is that young man who
	is placing crowns on them and putting palms in their
	hands?"  he answered and said to me, "He is the Son
	of God, whom they confessed in the world."  So I began
	to praise those who had stood valiantly for the name
	of the Lord.  Then the angel said to me, "Go, tell my
	people how great and how many are the wonders of the
	Lord God that you have seen."

It should be noted that Chapters 1 & 2 of 2 Esdras are often called 5 Ezra,
and placed after chapters 3-14 (often called 4 Ezra, because Ezra and Nehemiah
were once called 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Esdras were called 3 and 4 Esdras).
It is rather clear that chapters 1-2 and chapters 15-16 are additions written
in early Christian times.

/john

.29 John Covert

>"The Song of the Three Holy Children" is inserted into Daniel between
>3:23 and 3:24, and Susanna and Bel form chapters 13 and 14 of the Greek
>version of Daniel.

This is interesting, John, since Daniel was originally written in Hebrew, (eh?)
which I am told does not include these pieces.  How they got into
the Greek, I don't know.  (Further, I'm repeating what I am told and
read.)

One more thing: please pardon my continued ignorance between the 
differences of the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican church.
I know that they split off because of one of England's Kings (Henry VIII,
wasn't it?) but am really confused when you tell me that Anglicans
include in the Bible, that Catholics do not.  I'm happy that we all
have the same 66 book subset of whatever we all have.

Mark

>This is interesting, John, since Daniel was originally written in Hebrew, (eh?)
>which I am told does not include these pieces.  How they got into
>the Greek, I don't know.

One of the reasons that Jerome originally flagged certain parts of the Bible
as being "different" was because no Hebrew or Aramaic was extant.  However,
various pieces of the Apocrypha in Hebrew have been found in the Qumrun caves.

Part of the Hebrew canon (the part we agree on) of Daniel is in Aramaic,
part in Hebrew.

>[I] am really confused when you tell me that Anglicans
>include in the Bible, that Catholics do not.

Only three books, 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh (the last is only
15 verses), are in the King James Bible and used by Anglicans but were not
dogmatically affirmed as canonical at Trent and relegated to an appendix
and thus don't appear in most modern Roman Catholic bibles.  Since the
Anglican schism occurred just before Trent, Anglicans continue to use what
was in the complete Latin Vulgate before Trent removed these three.

/john

>The five books which the King James Bible calls "Additions to
>Esther", "The Song of the Three Holy Children", "The History of
>Susanna", and "Bel and the Dragon" appear integrated with Esther
>and Daniel.

That should read:

The five books which the King James Bible calls "Additions to
Esther", "The Song of the Three Holy Children", "The History of
Susanna", "Bel and the Dragon", and "The Letter of Jeremiah" appear
integrated with Esther, Daniel, and Baruch.

/john

Hello all,

I have been very busy, both on and off the job, so have gotten
way behind in here.  I have wondered about this topic for some
time, and I have been glad to see the discussion.  Now a
question.  What, if any, is the substantive difference between
these books and the rest of the Bible?  If you are on the side
of inclusion, what does it seem to you that God's reason for
inspiring them was?  If on the other, is there anything of
substance that they seem counter to?

Thanks,

Lew

% From: Robert Harrison <[email protected]>

This information is taken from Laurence Boadt's "Reading the Old
Testament: An Introduction."

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

This is the longest of the wisdom literature in the OT with 51
chapters.  It includes proverbs and essays on themes in the wisdom
tradition.  The book is in two parts 1-24 and 25-50, 51 is an appendix
in the form of a hymn.

Sirach stresses the ethical aspects of daily life.

"The author identifies himself only at the end of chapter 50, but
luckily his grandson translated the original into Greek and wrote a
preface that gives us the one known date for a wisdom book.  the youth
arrived in Egypt in 132 B.C. and soon after translated with
grandfather's book from Hebrew.  That would place the writing of
Sirach between 190 and 175 B.C.  For many centuries it was though to
be only in Greek in the Septuagint.  But a partial copy of the Hebrew
original was found at the end of the last century hidden in a
synagogue storeroom in Cairo, and another when archaeologists
excavated Masada in Palestine in 1964.  A few fragments also turned
up at Qumran in 1947.  Despite this evidence that first century Jews
in Palestine used Sirach, it was never accepted into the Jewish canon
because it was not from the time of Ezra, or before.  Its popular name
in Church circles, Ecclesiasticus, "The Church Book," might also be a
factor.  The Christians liked it all too well in their catechetical
instructions for Jews to be at ease with it."

Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. Paulist
Press. New York. 1984. pp. 487.

The problem with the Protestant assertion that the books of the Apocrypha were
"added" at the Council of Trent is that both the Eastern Orthodox Church, which
broke communion with Rome in 1054, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, which
broke communion with Rome in 431 I think (Council of Chalcedon), accept these
books which Protestants call Apocryphal.

Dake has attacted their historicity.  Well, to tell the truth, if there is
dispute as to the historic accuracy of the Apocryphal books, there is also some
dispute over the historic accuracy of the other books of the Old Testament.
Catholics regard the Bible as inspired and inerrant in all things relating to
our salvation.  It does not necessarily regard them as historically or 
scientifically inerrant.

It is true that there has been some dispute over the years, even within the
Catholic Church, on the canon of the Old Testament.  In fact, the canon of the
Orthodox Church is larger than the canon of the Catholic Church.  You will find
conflicting lists of canons of the Old Testament as you will find conflicting
canons of the New Testament.  Which means that it's not quite as cut and dried
as Dake would have you believe. 

>  1) They were not written or approved by a prophet

Not all OT books were.

>  2) They were not recognized by the Jews, as inspired and a part of
>  Scripture

Correction: they were rejected by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia in 100 A.D.
Before that some Palestinian Jews used them, which is where the Catholic Church
gets them from.

>  3) They were not recognized or quoted by Christ and the apostles, a
>  fact that is more striking when we realize that Paul even quoted twice
>  from heathen poets

No, Christ and the Apostles did not quote directly from them, but a few points.

1) Christ and the Apostles _did_ very strongly allude to them in a number of
places.  There are doctrinal references the Christ alludes to that are only
explained in the Apocrypha.

2) Not every OT book Protestants recognize is quoted by Christ or the Apostles,
either, so this is not a good judge of what books should be canonical.

3) Since Paul did quote from heathen poets, simply quoting from a book doesn't
prove anything about its canonicity anyway.

>  4) The last OT prophet predicted that the next messenger coming to
>  Israel from God would be the forerunner of Christ (Mal 3:1).  Most of
>  the Apocryphal books were written during the period between Malachi and
>  Christ.

Well, you fully admitted that none of the apocryphal books were written by
prophets, hence there is no contradiction.

>  5) Divine authority is not claimed by their authors, and by some it is
>  virtually disowned (2 Macc 2:23; 15:38)

Not all the OT books claim divine authority, either.  John has covered part B.

>  6) The books contain statements at variance with the Bible History

And some would argue the same is true with the protocanonical books.

>  7) They are self-contradictory and, in some cases, opposed to doctrines
>  of Scripture.

And some would argue the same is true with the protocanonical books.

>  8) Josephus, who lived at the time of the apostles, did not regard the
>  Apocryphal books as Scripture.  He stated that the OT books (the ones
>  in our present version) were the only inspired writings (See Josephus,
>  Book I, section 8).

Josephus is suspect, being a post-Christian Jew.

  9) 

John covered this.

>  10) Philo and others did not regard the Apocryphal books as inspired.

See #8.

>  11) There is a lack of prophetic element in them; and there is an
>  apparent imitation of the inspired OT books.

Oh, yeah? There is a stunning prophesy of Christ in Wisdom chapter 2 (or 12,
I forget which).  A prophesy that was indeed fulfilled: it talks about how
evil men would conspire to kill the Holy One of God.

>  12) They show too free use of the imagination, which has given rise to
>  silly stories, and the lack of spiritual force and power.

The same could be argued about the protocanonical books.

I recently realized something that I found very interesting.

There are 66 books in the Protestant Bible, a number I've always found rather 
strange and unusual, given that it's biblically an odd number and very close to
the number of the Beast.  I was stunned when I realized that the number of 
books in the Catholic Bible is 72 -- a number which figures frequently into
Biblical numerology.  Twelve -- the number of the Apostles and Tribes of
Israel -- times Three -- the number of persons in the Trinity -- times Two --
the number of natures in Christ the Word.

Eric

Note 214.39   LEVERS::EWANCO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  1) They were not written or approved by a prophet
>
>Not all OT books were.  (and other comments about this by Eric)

These points are not to be taken spearately, but collectively.  That is,
"if they were not written or approved by a prophet, what other criteria
suggests that this text is divinely inspired?"  Then move onto the other
points.  You may see the criteria more celarly if you do.


>1) Christ and the Apostles _did_ very strongly allude to them in a number of
>places.  There are doctrinal references the Christ alludes to that are only
>explained in the Apocrypha.

"Doctrinal references" eh?  Is ths the rub?  Are we talking specific doctrines
of the Catholic church, that are not necessrily embraced by other Christian
churches?  Or are we talking about doctrines that we all share?



>>  4) The last OT prophet predicted that the next messenger coming to
>>  Israel from God would be the forerunner of Christ (Mal 3:1).  Most of
>>  the Apocryphal books were written during the period between Malachi and
>>  Christ.
>
>Well, you fully admitted that none of the apocryphal books were written by
>prophets, hence there is no contradiction.

Indeed.  Which, to me at least, is a strike against canonizing, though not the
ONLY arbitor against them.


>>  6) The books contain statements at variance with the Bible History
>
>And some would argue the same is true with the protocanonical books.

I'd like to see these assertion against (6), (7) and (12) fleshed out. please.

>Josephus is suspect, being a post-Christian Jew.

Suspect by whom?

>>  11) There is a lack of prophetic element in them; and there is an
>>  apparent imitation of the inspired OT books.
>
>Oh, yeah? There is a stunning prophesy of Christ in Wisdom chapter 2 (or 12,
>I forget which).  A prophesy that was indeed fulfilled: it talks about how
>evil men would conspire to kill the Holy One of God.

"Lack of prophetic element" does not have to mean "no prophetic element;"
it could mean dearth, but that's Dake's assertion anyway.

>I recently realized something that I found very interesting.
>
>There are 66 books in the Protestant Bible, a number I've always found rather
>strange and unusual, given that it's biblically an odd number and very close to
>the number of the Beast.  I was stunned when I realized that the number of
>books in the Catholic Bible is 72 -- a number which figures frequently into
>Biblical numerology.  Twelve -- the number of the Apostles and Tribes of
>Israel -- times Three -- the number of persons in the Trinity -- times Two --
>the number of natures in Christ the Word.

Well, Eric, I suppose this is a touch� for all those persons (of which I am 
NOT one) who have said that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, eh?  Do you think
that turnabout is fair play in this case?

Mark