On whose authority did Luther remove the Apocrypha?

[church mouse guy]

"Of course, one could probably expect a biased presentation of the facts concerning the Deuterocanonicals from Mr.McDowell."

LOL. If you believe the books of the Catholic Bible, okay. But if you think that there are major groups who agree with the Catholics among the Jews and the Protestants, then I would say that McDowell's summary of scholarship is accurate. The fact that he is Protestant and Evangelical does not make him biased anymore than if he were not who he is would make him unbiased.

The main group that wants to add to the Old Testament are the Catholics. LOL.

 

[rsr]

"Cardinal Cajetan was mistaken as to the importance of Jerome's distinction, as well as to its significance?"

I don't understand your response.

"Was Carthage a general council?"

No. So what?

Then what possible authority could it have to establish any canon?


"Maybe. But Marcion committed graver errors, which persuaded him to create his own canon."

So? The principle remains the same.

Why? Are you saying the opinion of Jerome is north worth more than the opinion of Marcion?

"If Luther and Jerome were alone, or even a tiny minority, I might agree, but I do not see that as the case."

That things have swung the other way since then shows nothing except perhaps the power of foolishly equating what is (how Bibles are printed by Protestant or Protestant-influenced printing firms) with what should be.

Again, I think you overestimate the unanimity in regard to the canon or the different gradations recognized within the canon.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
He gave it to His elect and told them to use it as a witness to the world. His elect have died to remain faithful to the words thereof.
Bro. James

But if His elect were initially using a version of the OT containing the Apocrypha, what then?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[church mouse guy]

Matt, once again out of friendship for you, I am going to help you out on this question of scholarship. When I am done, I think that you will find that Martin Luther had little, if anything, to do with this question, because the books were not in the Bible at the time Martin Luther started the Reformation in Germany. Therefore, your thread title is inaccurate and misleading. The proper topic of debate is where did Rome get their crazy idea? It is the Jews who decided what books belonged in the Old Testament. The Roman Catholic Church stands alone against the Jews.

Josh McDowell in The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict quotes Norman Geisler, currently dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary (also, co-founder) and William Nix, former teacher at Detroit Bible College and Trinity College, in their book A General Introduction to the Bible first published by Moody Press in Chicago in 1968 and revised in 1986.

Here is what McDowell writes based upon Geisler and Nix in a section called "Historical Testimony of Their Exclusion."

Geisler and Nix give ten testimonies of antiquity that argue against recognition of the Apocrypha:

1. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-AD 40), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.

2. Josephus (AD 30-100), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testament as twenty-two. Neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.

3. Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of the canonical books of the Old Testament.

4. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (AD 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

5. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.

6. Many of th great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha--for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

7. Jerome (AD 340-420), the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. Jerome said that the church reads them "for example of life and instruction of manners," but does not "apply them to establish any doctrine." He disputed with Augustine across the Mediterranean on this point. At first Jerome refused even to translate the apocryphal books into Latin, but later he made a hurried translation of a few of them. After his death and "over his dead body" the apocryphal books wer brought into his Latin Vulgate directly from the Old Latin Version.

8. Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha.

9. Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

10. Not until AD 1546, in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Ellis Murphree]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ellis Murphree:
They simply don't bare the marks of inspiration

This is not meant personally although it appears to be, but who are you (or indeed I or any other individual) to decide or pronounce on that?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]LOL! I've been around debate forums long enough to have grown a pretty thick skin. I don't take much personally - even personal attacks (which is something that seems to be pleasently absent from this particular forum)!

The following is a cut & pasts from a systematic theology course that I wrote for a dicipleship class last year. It's not all original with me (obviously), but it is the end result of a great deal of study on this matter. This is a portion of the section on Bibliology:


F. Canonicity
There are thirty-nine (39) Old Testament and twenty-seven (27) New Testament books. How was that determined?
1. Authorship
i. Criterion for Old Testament Canonicity

a. Authorization by a prophet . The book bore the imprint of having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the book had been accepted as authoritative.

b. Internal Evidence : Was the message of the book internally consistent and did it measure up to the standards of the Scripture. Remember, books are canonical not because Israel determined them to be; but because they were recognized as such from their inception and down though the ages.

c. External Evidence : Was a book consistent with other books and were prophecies fulfilled to the letter.


ii. Criterion for New Testament Canonicity

a. Apostolic authority

b. Acceptance by the churches

c. Internal Witness ; the books were self-authenticating in their authority.

d. In the final analysis it was the oversight of Christ for His Church through the Spirit of God that directed them in the collection of the Canon

2. Acceptance
i. Pseudepigrapha – there are 21 common books (all O.T.) and countless others that are part of the pseudepigrapha. They are books that are written by people claiming to be O.T. characters. They were never accepted as canon. These books were written primarily between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. The 21 common pseudepigraphal books are:
a. I Enoch
b. II Enoch
c. IV Baruch
d. The Book of Adam and Eve
e. The Life of Adam and Eve
f. The Story of Ahikar
g. The Apocalypse of Adam
h. The Apocalypse of Moses
i. The Book of Enoch
j. Joseph and Aseneth
k. The Book of Jubilees
l. The Letter of Aristeas
m. The Martyrdom of Isaiah
n. The Psalms of Solomon
o. Pseudo-Phoclides
p. The Revelation of Esdras
q. The Sybillene Oracles
r. The Testament of Abraham
s. The Testament of Job
t. The Testament of Solomon
u. The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
v. Countless others – the N.T. books and letters border on heresy

ii. Apocrypha – there are 13-14 books in the apocrypha. 14 when the letter of Jeremiah stands alone; 13 when it is tacked on to the end of Baruch. The books of the apocrypha are:
a. I Esdras (III Esdras)
b. II Esdras (IV Esdras)
c. Tobit
d. Judith
e. The additions to the book of Esther
f. The Wisdom of Solomon
g. Ecclesiasticus, or The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
h. Baruch
i. The Letter of Jeremiah
j. The Prayer of Azoriah and the Song of the Three Young Men
k. Susanna
l. Prayer of Manassah
m. I Maccabees
n. II Maccabees

iii. The Apocryphal books were rejected from the canon of Scripture for many reasons including, but not limited to the following:

a. They were never included in the Hebrew Old Testament
b. They were never accepted as canonical by Jesus and His Apostles
c. They were not accepted by early Jewish and Christian writers
d. They do not evidence intrinsic qualities of inspiration
e. They have been shrouded with continual uncertainty

 

[Bro. James]

If the elect use uninspired writings--what then?

One possible answer: they are in fact "pseudo elect". There are many who claim to be the elect--many are false.

Contrary to the popular and historic beliefs of many, there is nothing "hidden" about the Word of God--with one profound qualification: "You must be born again." The scripture is spiritually discerned. This is where the errors of men have crept in--from those unregenerated. i.e. Many "right reverend doctors" have erred regarding "The Faith once for all delivered unto the Saints". Such continues to assail the cause of Christ.

One does not need a theologian or a priest to get right with God. "No one comes to the Father unless the Spirit draws him."
"Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by The Word of God."

The pillar and ground of the Truth is not corrupted--the indwelling of The Holy Spirit in the New Testament Church is our assurance of verity. God does not lead His children to error.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Ellis Murphree:
b. They were never accepted as canonical by Jesus and His Apostles
c. They were not accepted by early &lt;snip&gt;Christian writers
d. They do not evidence intrinsic qualities of inspiration
e. They have been shrouded with continual uncertainty

How do you know b and c? What do you mean by d? E I am trying to shed some light on here.

Bro James, are you saying the apostles (who used the Alexandian OT containing the DCs AFAIK) were not among the elect?

CMG, thanks for your efforts which I will go away and inwardly digest and mull over. Your list does not however mention the Orthodox Church; according to an Orthodox friend of mine, his church has been using the DCs consistently since the time of the apostles. If he is correct (and I'd be interested in your further research in that regard) surely that gives powerful evidence of continuity and hence canonicity (needless to say he has a very low opinion of Jerome as a 'western' Christian!)...?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[rsr]

Since the Orthodox and Latin Rite churches have different canons, which should be accepted?

 

[HankD]

Since the Orthodox and Latin Rite churches have different canons, which should be accepted?

And how would you know that your choice was the correct one?

HankD

 

[kennethc]

&lt;&lt;error&gt;&gt;

 

[Matt Black]

If therefore the test is that of Vincent de Lerins (that of asking what the whole Church has believed throughout her existence - and leaving to one side of one can the equally thorny probelm of 'what is the Church?') then, given that the Orthodox and Catholics are not in agreement about which of the DCs are in the OT canon, and the Protestants (although whether Vincent's test should be extended to us as we've only been around for 25% of Christianity's history is another matter) don't think the DCs are canonical at all, then we come to the conclusion that it is at best (from the POV of the DCs being included) unclear which of the DCs are canonical and at worst cleat that they should not be included at all...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[HankD]

...then we come to the conclusion that it is at best (from the POV of the DCs being included) unclear which of the DCs are canonical and at worst clear that they should not be included at all

..."at worst"?
That is according to your view/criteria Matt, please don't use the personal pronoun "we" but "I", because it misrepresents everyone else who has posted in this thread (so far) and holds to a different view.

Namely: The Apocrypha is non-canonical.

HankD

 

[Matt Black]

It was a rhetorical device...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Bro. James]

Apostles among the elect:

When "holy men of God" spoke, they were moved by The Holy Spirit. What they said or wrote was God-breathed--it contained no error. There are many "sacred" writings which do not qualify per the above--The Apocrypha included. Writings which teach for doctrines the commandments of men originate in the pit--from the author of confusion. The basic criteria is still: Is it God-breathed? Usually the answer is no.

We have all we need in the 66 books--Gen. to Rev.--Jesus in every book. What more do we need?

God is not the author of confusion. The confusion is birthed from depraved man's insistence that God's revelation must agree with man's preconceived notion of what God ought to be saying.

"Let God be found true, and every man a liar."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[HankD]

It was a rhetorical device...

OK, but I still don't appreciate being included in it, rhetorical or not.

HankD

 

[HankD]

We have all we need in the 66 books--Gen. to Rev.--Jesus in every book. What more do we need?

You heard of the little boy's answer in Sunday School when asked "what does it mean when someone says the Bible is inspired?"

"It means it's all true from Genesis to Maps".

HankD

 

[church mouse guy]

What a pity that the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics do not constantly send representatives to Jews to tell the Jews that they do not know what they are talking about when they (the Jews) list the books of the Old Testament. It seems that the Roman Catholics discovered the "truth" about the Jewish Hebrew Scripture after the Protestant Reformation began and, evidently, the Eastern Orthodox discovered the "truth" about the Jewish Hebrew Scripture sometime after 1054 AD when they split off from the Catholics.

It seems that only Protestants and Jews agree about what books are holy to the Jews. What makes the Jews think that they know what books are holy to them?

 

[HankD]

What makes the Jews think that they know what books are holy to them?

Romans 2
2 ...because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

HankD

 

[church mouse guy]

Thank you! Good point! The Jews do not recognize the Apocrypha. It is the Jews who have determined what books belong in the Old Testament. Since the Jews do not recognize the Apocrypha, the Baptists should not recognize the Apocrypha either.

 

[Matt Black]

The Jews do not recognise Jesus as Messiah, Lord and God either. Does that mean Baptists should do likewise?

Yours in Christ

Matt