Deuterocannon...


#1

Why the Apocrypha Isn’t in the Bible.

  1. 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.
  2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
  3. 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 overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
  4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I’m certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
  5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
  6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

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.

Salvation by works:

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.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish…and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.

  1. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
  2. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
  3. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

#2

Apocrypha in KJV?

Didn’t the 1611 King James Bible contain the Apocrypha?

Yes, it did. But we must remember that in that day, the Apocrypha was considered an historical document and was added as supplementary historical material IN BETWEEN the Old and New Testaments. The KJV translators went out of their way to let everyone know that the Apocrypha books were not a part of Inspired Scripture. They gave 7 reasons in the preface as to WHY the Apocrypha was not a part of Inspired Scripture. Contrast this with The Catholic Bibles from the corrupted Alexandrian Manuscripts which dispersed the apocryphal books throughout the Old Testament, implying they were a part of Inspired Scripture! The Apocrypha Books were not inspired, and taught many Unscriptural things such as prayers for the dead; magical incantation, sinless perfection, etc.

Much like today, our Bible publishers have added a concordance or maps in the back of the Bible as supplementary material to be helpful to the Bible reader. We understand that these concordances and maps are not inspired like Scripture. The Apocrypha in that day was considered a helpful historical supplement, but the translators wanted to make sure that people didn’t think these historical writings were considered to be a part of the Bible itself.


#3

This is the toughest thing, please if any amoung you can help then do so please!!!


#4

[quote=Valtiel]This is the toughest thing, please if any amoung you can help then do so please!!!
[/quote]

The deuterocanonical books were part of the Septaugent, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible dating back to around 200 BC. In Jesus’ time Hebere was a dead language (Aramaic had replaced it.) But virtually all educated people spoke, read and wrote Greek – which was also the language of commerce. The Septaugent was the most commonly used version of the Bible (all of Jesus’ quotes in the Gospels come from the Septaugent) and was considered by the Jews to be canonical.

In Christ’s time, there was no agreement about the canon of the Bible – the Saducees accepted only the first five books (the Pentateuch or Torah.) Most Pharasees accepted all the books in the Septaugent (Saint Paul was a Pharasee, and studied under Gamaliel.) The Essenes apparently accepted even more books, if the evidence of what was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls is any indicator.

As Christianity spread through the known world, the Septaugent became the Christian standard. In those days, “the Bible” was really “the Scriptures” – since each book was a separate scroll. It would not be uncommon for a church, Christian community, or a synagogue to have an incomplete collection of scrolls.

The single most used book of the Bible in the earliest times was Sirach – used to instruct catecumens in proper living. Note that Sirach is one of the Deuterocanonical books!!

There is some claim that the Jews rejected the Deuterocanonical books at the “Council” of Jamnina, but that is a rather forced conclusion – Jamnina was a school, not a council.

The Masorites (“handers down”) developed rigid standards and rites for copying and preserving the Bible. The definitive Jewish canon was basically established by Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali in the 8th Century. Prior to that time the Deuterocanonical Books were often found in Jewish manuscripts.

The Catholic Church, of course, had always used the Deuterocanonical books (and by the way, who was this “real Christian church” if it isn’t the Catholic Church?) and established the canon of both New and Old Testaments in the late 4th Century, before the Jews settled their version.


#5
  1. 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.
    One only arrives at Hebrew being the only language used by excluding the books that were written in Greek. The Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures is predominantly what the apostles used, so they didn’t seem to think that Hebrew was a necessity.

  2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
    Do all of the non-“apocryphal” claim inspiration? Hint: no.

  3. 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 overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
    Maybe not by the Palestinian Jews, but by the Alexandrian (Greek-speaking) Jews, yes. And it is debated whether or not the Jews formally rejected the Greek Old Testament (which included the “apocrypha”). Part of the reason it was rejected, though not necessarily formally, was because there were differences of translation between the two. The Greek being the one used by Christians, the Jews then rejected it. Notice that Christians used the Greek scriptures. One needs to ask why Christians should be bound by the decision of the Jews, especially post-temple destruction.

  4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I’m certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
    The “Catholic religion” was the only one around at the time. And the “apocrypha” were accepted by the Church as scripture before such books as Revelation.

  5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
    Similar issues arise with books Protestants recognize, both Old and New Testament (e.g. How Saul dies in Kings vs. Chronicles; how Judas dies in Gospels vs. Acts).

  6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
    Only if one a priori excludes the books in which those doctrines are contained. You can’t judge canonicity by what doctrines are contained in a book. You judge whether a doctrine is true by whether it is in the book.

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:

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.
There is a basis for purgatory in the New Testament, although these verses are also important.

Salvation by works:

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Similar verses are found in Peter and James.

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.
Ditto.

Magic:

Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish…and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Ditto, although not Peter and James. Try Acts 19:12.

Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):

Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
I never heard of that verse before, and I believe the Immculate Conception is biblical…from Genesis and the New Testament. I.e., the Immcaulate Conception does not stand or fall based on this verse.

  1. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
    So does the Old Testament.

  2. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
    But not all Old Testament books. What about those? Should they be ripped out of the Old Testament too?

  3. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
    And this person’s writings are only valuable as his (non-sense) opinions.


#6

The following Old Testament books are accepted by Protestants, but not quoted in the New Testament:

Judges,
1 Chronicles,

Nahum,

Zephaniah,

Obadiah,

Esther,

Ruth,

Ezra,

Nehemiah,

Ecclesiastes,

Lamentations,

and the Song of Songs.

The following deuterocanonicals** are** referenced in the New Testament:

2 Mac 6:18-7:42 is referenced in Heb 11:35

Wisdom 3:5-6 is referenced in1 Pet 1:6-7

Wisdom 13:1-9 is referenced in Rom 1:18-32

In addition, the Book of Enoch (not accepted in Jewish, Catholic or Protestant Bibles) is quoted in the New Testament (Jude 1,6.)


#7

This is a great (but long) refutation of most of these. It is by Mark Shea, and is to be trusted.

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/markshea/sheavings/5myths.asp

“5 Myths about 7 Books”

RyanL


#8
  1. 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.

I am certain that I read that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of the Book of Wisdom written in Hebrew? Hmm. Science and archeology working to confirm the Catholic Canon of Scripture!


#9

[quote=ames61]I am certain that I read that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of the Book of Wisdom written in Hebrew? Hmm. Science and archeology working to confirm the Catholic Canon of Scripture!
[/quote]

You are correct – but the idea that the Bible can only be written in Hebrew is a specious argument, so it doesn’t matter – except when answering confused anti-Catholic polemics. http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.