Question on the Bible


#1

Hi all
I posted a question on another site about the books of the Bible that Catholic’s claim were removed from the original Bible. This is his responce.

Dear Dave

It has been a while since I studied the Canonicity of the Bible. The Canonicity is at the heart of your question. Though I will not go into a lenghty discussion on that subject, I will try and address your direct question concerning removal of books.

Dave, what is at question is what is referred to as the Apocrypha. These are mainly historical books that were written after Malachi (400 B.C.) and prior to the coming of Jesus. These books were not recognized by Jesus nor the Apostles of the New Testament, which is a study in and of its self. They were not offically accepted until the Council of Trent as canonical in 1546, though accepted by some before then. The “Prayer of Manasses” (Manasseh) was included before 1550, but is now left out. “The prayer breathes a Christian spirit, and it is not entirely certain that it is really of Jewish origin.” (Catholic Enyc., I, 605). The Council of Trent did not accept 1 and 2 Esdras along with the Prayer of Manasseh.

Why Christians reject the Apocrypha: As I noted, Jesus and His Apostles did not refer to the apocrypha one time. Thus they were not accepted, as authoritative by any of the New Testament writers. Jesus quoted from every other division of the Old Testament. Secondly, Judaism never accepted these books as part of their canon. Josephus and Philo specifically rejected the Apocrypha. Though they were included in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), they were never accepted as canonical. Even in the New American Bible, the new Catholic Translation, the Story of Susanna and Bel and The Dragon are footnoted as: “They are excluded from the Jewish canon of Scripture…” Thirdly, there is unbiblical teaching in the apocrypha, such as praying for the dead (2 Mac. 12:46). Fourth, they contain demonstrable errors; such as the life span of Tobit, who lived 158 years (Tob. 1:3-5; 14:11), yet lived at the time of Jeroboam during the revolt (931 B.C.) and at the time of Assyrian captivity (722 B.C.). Not quite 158 years. Fifth, It took nearly 1500 years after there writting, before they were offically accepted as part of the Canon, by the Catholic Church. (Council of Trent - 1546). Sixth, Pope Gregory the Great rejected apocrypha (540 - 604). “… books as ’ books which though not canonical, are received for the edification of the church” Lib. Mor. 19,21, PL 76, 119: (A Catholic Commentary 18). So much for infallibility (faulty bible means fallibility for the Catholic bible). There is much that can be said, but I think this may help you in your studies.

Sincerely, Mike Divis

I would like to here from Catholics on this issue, and some of your responces to what Mike had to say on this issue.
Thanks.


#2

[quote=NonDenom]Hi all
I posted a question on another site about the books of the Bible that Catholic’s claim were removed from the original Bible. This is his responce.

I would like to here from Catholics on this issue, and some of your responces to what Mike had to say on this issue.
Thanks.
[/quote]

If the source of my response is the Catholic Church, will you reject it as you do everything else from teh Catholic Church? Since you ascribe to a philosophy that you as a youth minister (at an organized place of worship that doesn’t even have an organized heirarchy to help with Scriptural interpretation, no less) are capable to discern the Truth from teh Holy Spirit and you reject anything and everything that disputes your view of the world, I think this is futile.


#3

Scripture Catholic will have a lot of answers such as the fact that Jesus and his disciples clearly used the Septuagint over the Taknah and that the deuterocanon is referred to in Scripture.

Keep in mind that not all of the universally accepted OT books are mentioned in the NT either.

It wasn’t officially taught until Trent because it wasn’t questioned. It had been questioned early on, of course, but the issue was settled in coucils during the late 4th century.

Is there unbiblical teaching in the “apocrypha”? Yes, just as there is throughout the OT. Have you read the OT yourself. It is a journey to truth (often contradicting its earlier beliefs) that isn’t completed until Christ. There is a psalm talking about how God doesn’t need sacrifice and it ends asking God to rebuild his temple so He can be served with proper sacrifices. This would be an addendum to justify Solomon.

If you want a demonstrable error, read Matthew 1:17. There is an error in ADDITION! I for one won’t throw out the Bible because of it.

Lastly the Pope thing would be significant if it is in an ex-cathedra setting. He gave a cite for it and that is commendable. Unfortunately I have a class to go to, so hopefully someone else will take the time to look at it.


#4

there are over 350 references to those 7 books in the new testament… if i am correct, thats 2/3rds of all of the OT references… the septuigent was the common and accepted scripture at the time (this comes from my very anticatholic history professor) and so Jesus would have used the greek OT. the mention of the deuterocanonical books (apocrypha) not being in the Jewish scripture is correct. about 100AD, the Jews decided to completely check through their books, and declared soem were no longer suitable… kinda like the protestants did around the reformation. they had several criteria, most of which were just to solidly prove the point…


#5

Follow this link to a Coptic (not Catholic) web site for the Coptic take on this issue: [/font]


#6

These points have already been touched upon, but I thought I’d reiterate/expand . . .
[list]
*]The Greek Septuagint (including the dueterocanonical or apocryphal books) was commonly accepted as canonical at the time of Jesus
*]The NT quotes the Septuagint extensively
*]Not all OT books are quoted by the NT, so using this method can’t be used to prove even the books Protestants accept
*]The Jews did not formally canonize their scriptures until well after Christianity had grown substantially. ~100AD
*]The Jews specifically canonized their scriptures in response to the Christians adding new scriptures (i.e. the NT). The whole point of the the Jews canonizing their scripture was to remove all teaching that supported Christianity.
*]The Bible as we know it today (including the dueterocanonical or apocryphal books) was canonized in 398 by the Catholic Church - all honest scholars recognize that without the Catholic Church no one would know what books to include/exclude.
*]No mention of revising the canon was made until Martin Luther revised it at the onset of the Protestant reformation in 1507. In addition to the 7 OT books, Luther also wanted to remove the NT books of Hebrews and James.
*]Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German was done specifically to forward his own interests - self interpretation, faith alone, and Bible alone false doctrines. The Catholic Church already had more than a dozen authorized translations in German prior to Martin Luther. Luther just wanted to have the books he didn’t agree with removed.
[/list]


#7

Mr. Divis seems to have a lot to say on the subject,
how about ask him a question for me.

i was raised in the baptist church, reading the
King James Version of the bible all my life, and
i really love it…

But i found out that the deuterocanonical books
were removed from the KJV in the 1880’s… in fact,
all protestant bibles had 80 books until the 1880’s…
(( now they have 66 ))

what happened in the 1880’s that caused the books
to be removed?

i’d really like to know, and can’t seem to find any
kind of reasonable explanation…

thanks for any help…

:slight_smile:


#8

“Why Christians reject the Apocrypha: As I noted, Jesus and His Apostles did not refer to the apocrypha one time. Thus they were not accepted, as authoritative by any of the New Testament writers. Jesus quoted from every other division of the Old Testament. Secondly, Judaism never accepted these books as part of their canon. Josephus and Philo specifically rejected the Apocrypha. Though they were included in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), they were never accepted as canonical.”

If your friend is Sola Scriptura, ask him where the Bible says that this is the crieteria for determining canonicity.

Besides, the books of Ecclesiastes and Esther are not quoted at all in the New Testament. Does this mean that “thus they were not accepted as authoritative by any of the New Testament writers”?


#9

Peace be with you!

Here are a couple references for you (the first is the best):

cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm
catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

In Christ,
Rand


#10

[quote=johnshelby]Mr. Divis seems to have a lot to say on the subject,
how about ask him a question for me.

i was raised in the baptist church, reading the
King James Version of the bible all my life, and
i really love it…

But i found out that the deuterocanonical books
were removed from the KJV in the 1880’s… in fact,
all protestant bibles had 80 books until the 1880’s…
(( now they have 66 ))

what happened in the 1880’s that caused the books
to be removed?

i’d really like to know, and can’t seem to find any
kind of reasonable explanation…

thanks for any help…

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

They were included in the original KJV up to the mid 1800’s. During this time the power of the printing presses lay in the hands of a few rich elite who decided not to include them in future publications of the Bible. People couldnt really do anything about it to stop them, and as those generations died away the future generations grew up only knowing the 66 book version. And as we see today they just accept what they find on the shelf not knowing any different.
Even the Reformers didnt totally remove them like we see today, early in Luther’s protestant days he quoted from the DC books with no problems, later he degraded them to “less than Scripture but worth reading”.


#11

…the Apocrypha… (the Deuterocanonicals) These books were not recognized by Jesus nor the Apostles of the New Testament, which is a study in and of its self.

I would address this question with a study of Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament (cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm)…also…also), a comparison of OT quotes by the Apostles in the NT reveals that the Greek Septuagint was their usual source…the Greek Septuagint includes the Deuterocanonicals…neither Jesus nor the Apostles give us an “inspired table of contents”…apparently, it was God’s Will for this question to be settled by His Church, “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Tim 3:15). Indeed, the question cannot be settled by any appeal to Scripture “alone”…Church authority must ultimately be relied upon however you may identify “the church”.

They were not officially accepted until the Council of Trent as canonical in 1546, though accepted by some before then. The “Prayer of Manasses” (Manasseh) was included before 1550, but is now left out. “The prayer breathes a Christian spirit, and it is not entirely certain that it is really of Jewish origin.” (Catholic Enyc., I, 605). The Council of Trent did not accept 1 and 2 Esdras along with the Prayer of Manasseh.

Indeed the history of how the Canon was definitively and dogmatically determined is a long and winding road regardless of who’s “official canon” you end up accepting. If you accept the Protestant canon then you’re faced with the fact that Christianity questioned books you now accept (eg., The Apocalypse) and accepted ones (quoting them as Scripture and using them to establish doctrine) you now reject. So was early Christianity in error? or are those who now contradict them?

For a review of the problem see Where we got the Bible:
users.stargate.net/~elcore/wegotnt.htm

Why Christians reject the Apocrypha:

I have to laugh. Who are the “Christians” that reject the Apocrypha? I know of “Christians” who accept the “Apocrypha”…I guess so much depends upon “who your teachers are” (2Tim 3:14)

As I noted, Jesus and His Apostles did not refer to the apocrypha one time.

Again, study the following: Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm - for starters consider St Paul’s allusions to Wisdom Chapters 13-15 evident in Romans 1:19-32…I submit to you that the reason the author of this article may fail to see references to “the apocrypha” in the NT is because of unfamiliarity with “the apocrypha”.

(continued)


#12

Thus they were not accepted, as authoritative by any of the New Testament writers. Jesus quoted from every other division of the Old Testament.

…from “every division of the OT”…meaning, “from The Law, the prophets, and writings”…but note a huge problem with this line of reasoning…Jesus doesn’t quote from EVERY book of the OT and to further complicate matters, His Apostles quote from books which neither Protestants nor Catholics accept as “inspired”

See 5 Myths about 7 books by Mark Shea
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Myth 2

Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the “Quotation Equals Canonicity” myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren’t these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, “For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, I am the Son of God’” (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: “The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.” Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ’s words on the occasion of this feast: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?” Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being “set apart,” just as Judas Maccabeus “set apart” (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called “apocryphal” books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

(continued)


#13

Secondly, Judaism never accepted these books as part of their canon. I’m not sure that this is entirely correct as I remember reading of a sect within Judaism which does accept “the Apocrypha” but I’d have to verify this…in any event, the question of Canonicity among the Jews was also an open question for a long time and underwent development which was not settled until AFTER their rejection of their Messiah and His establishment of His Church to which I ask, of the two religious bodies to which does the believer in Jesus Christ defer to in matters of The Faith?

Josephus and Philo specifically rejected the Apocrypha.

To which I ask, “so what?” Who are “Josephus and Philo” in matters of dispute with Christ’s Church??? I propose that one of the reasons for the Jews rejection of “the Apocrypha” was because the “christian sect” was using them in their teaching and preaching of Christ.

Though they were included in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), they were never accepted as canonical. Even in the New American Bible, the new Catholic Translation, the Story of Susanna and Bel and The Dragon are footnoted as: “They are excluded from the Jewish canon of Scripture…”

Again, “so what”…I’m not interested in the Canon of Scripture defined by an apostate religion…recall that the Jews fell away from God and the True Religion when they rejected Jesus. I’ll defer to the Christian Church every time on every question for it is Christ’s Church to which I am commanded to “listen to”. (Matthew 18:17)

Thirdly, there is unbiblical teaching in the apocrypha, such as praying for the dead (2 Mac. 12:46).

Sorry, praying for the dead is most Biblical, purgatory is real, the communion of saints and the sharing of spiritual gifts between the saints whether living or dead is both Biblical and real…but that’s another study.

Fourth, they contain demonstrable errors; such as the life span of Tobit, who lived 158 years (Tob. 1:3-5; 14:11), yet lived at the time of Jeroboam during the revolt (931 B.C.) and at the time of Assyrian captivity (722 B.C.). Not quite 158 years.

Well, I don’t know enough to answer this but I have no doubt that there is a one to be made. Like problems are encountered in the protocanonical books and within the NT as well…ask any atheist…so I’ll defer this point until I have more time to look into it.

newadvent.org/cathen/14749c.htm

Fifth, It took nearly 1500 years after there writing, before they were officially accepted as part of the Canon, by the Catholic Church. (Council of Trent - 1546). Sixth, Pope Gregory the Great rejected apocrypha (540 - 604). “… books as ’ books which though not canonical, are received for the edification of the church” Lib. Mor. 19,21, PL 76, 119: (A Catholic Commentary 18). So much for infallibility (faulty bible means fallibility for the Catholic bible). There is much that can be said, but I think this may help you in your studies.

The only point I find interesting above is the one “Pope Gregory the Great rejected the apocrypha”…I tend to doubt this but would like to investigate it further. Still, if differing opinions among Catholics is somehow “proof” against the infallibility of the Catholic Church then how much more so for non-Catholics who - if they agree of the Canon - agree on nothing else as to what the Scriptures teach.

Keep the Faith
jmt


#14

Jmj

NonDenom, I think a very good point was made earlier by forthright:

The Jews specifically canonized their scriptures in response to the Christians adding new scriptures (i.e. the NT). The whole point of the the Jews canonizing their scripture was to remove all teaching that supported Christianity.

How interesting! Now, the Septuagint was certainly used by the early Church – the books within considered to be Scripture. (Long topic in itself!) But, what I have found interesting is how obvious it seems that the Jewish community would decide to declare several books within the Septuagint as “erroneous” or non-Scripture - WELL after the rise of Christianity. One prophetic passage from the Book of Wisdom (written about a hundred years before the coming of Christ) always floors me every time I read it… and when I do… I can understand why this book and others like it were suddenly rejected by the Jews – (again) WELL AFTER Christ came and His message began to spread. Please read:

“Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.” Wisdom 2:12-20

It’s scary how close this resembles exactly what was done to Jesus isn’t it? Like I said, I can understand why this would make the 1st century Jews uncomfortable! I would probably say, “Uhmmm… NO! That book is bogus! It doesn’t mean anything… it’s not really Scripture… ‘Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!’” too. :wink:

Let’s say that you were a Christian in the early Church… and the Scriptures you heard and believed in were suddenly condemned by Jews… (mostly because they supported Christianity!) … would you say, “Yes, we received the Scriptures from our Jewish ancestry… therefore, they have the authority to decide what books are good and what ones are not - even now.”??? Even though the REASON behind the decision was to undermine Christianity? If Jews today proclaimed that the book of Isaiah was not “inspired” or not a part of the cannon for the Hebrew bible because of it’s Messianic prophecies (or for any reason for that matter)… would you say, “Yes, we received the Scriptures from our Jewish ancestry… therefore, they have the authority to decide what books are good and what ones are not - even now.” and then rip the book of Isaiah out of your Bible? If you believe that Judaism has all the answers or at least the authority to make decisions like that – why do you believe the New Testament is “inspired” or should be a part of the cannon?

It’s all very interesting to be sure! But I think you should be very careful in rejecting the Scriptures and taking the word of a single, disgruntled, 16th century Catholic heretic over the Word of Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church fathers (who received the Word from the Apostles.) Don’t reject the Holy Bible; don’t even reject parts of it! It is His gift to us all! Accept this gift and be grateful for it – many lives have been given for this gift!

May the Lord be with you!

Jason


#15

[quote=Catholic Dude]They were included in the original KJV up to the mid 1800’s. During this time the power of the printing presses lay in the hands of a few rich elite who decided not to include them in future publications of the Bible. People couldnt really do anything about it to stop them, and as those generations died away the future generations grew up only knowing the 66 book version. And as we see today they just accept what they find on the shelf not knowing any different.
Even the Reformers didnt totally remove them like we see today, early in Luther’s protestant days he quoted from the DC books with no problems, later he degraded them to “less than Scripture but worth reading”.
[/quote]

i’ve heard the explanation you give as to why the books were
removed, but i can’t believe that churchs, of any kind, would
allow the books to be removed without so much as a word,
unless there were some kind of shift in theology, and it would
have to have been a shift in a lot of different denomination’s
thinking…

i know the KJV was the official bible of the Anglican Church,
and have heard that they were the ones who originally had
the books removed from the KJV (( even the Geneva Bible,
the true protestant bible, had the books in every edition from
1560 on, except for the 1599 version i think, but they were
readded after that version was printed))… the Anglican church
had the English Revised Version produced in the 1880’s and
the books were missing from it… after that, i believe, they were
removed from subsequent editions of the KJV…

it’s been a mystery to me… i was raised baptist, and not to
’add to or take away from’ the bible was something that was
talked about a lot… so to find out these books were just dropped
in the 1880’s just seems … hard to believe…

:slight_smile:


#16

[quote=johnshelby]i’ve heard the explanation you give as to why the books were
removed, but i can’t believe that churchs, of any kind, would
allow the books to be removed without so much as a word,
unless there were some kind of shift in theology, and it would
have to have been a shift in a lot of different denomination’s
thinking…

i know the KJV was the official bible of the Anglican Church,
and have heard that they were the ones who originally had
the books removed from the KJV (( even the Geneva Bible,
the true protestant bible, had the books in every edition from
1560 on, except for the 1599 version i think, but they were
readded after that version was printed))… the Anglican church
had the English Revised Version produced in the 1880’s and
the books were missing from it… after that, i believe, they were
removed from subsequent editions of the KJV…

it’s been a mystery to me… i was raised baptist, and not to
’add to or take away from’ the bible was something that was
talked about a lot… so to find out these books were just dropped
in the 1880’s just seems … hard to believe…

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

They were easy to remove because the KJV took Luther’s lead and put them into a separate section. Instead of just OT & NT, the KJV had OT, Apocrypha, NT. As time went on and the Apocrypha was discounted more and more, leaving it out completely didn’t seem like a big deal.


#17

Fourth, they contain demonstrable errors; such as the life span of Tobit, who lived 158 years (Tob. 1:3-5; 14:11), yet lived at the time of Jeroboam during the revolt (931 B.C.) and at the time of Assyrian captivity (722 B.C.). Not quite 158 years.

Well, I don’t know enough to answer this but I have no doubt that there is a one to be made. Like problems are encountered in the protocanonical books and within the NT as well…ask any atheist…so I’ll defer this point until I have more time to look into it.

I think I can help. If you read the notes on the Book of Tobit from the NAB, it says something about it more than likely being a religious novel, a book-length parable of sorts. That doesn’t affect its inspiration (Jesus spoke in parables, after all). It was probably written using the name of a popular Jewish folk hero of the day.

-ACEGC


#18

[quote=forthright]They were easy to remove because the KJV took Luther’s lead and put them into a separate section. Instead of just OT & NT, the KJV had OT, Apocrypha, NT. As time went on and the Apocrypha was discounted more and more, leaving it out completely didn’t seem like a big deal.
[/quote]

i still can’t quite grasp that… even tho it was in a different ‘section’…
the Old Testament is a section, and the New… to remove either
would have caused quite a stir… so why were those books
different…

if the baptists of the 1880’s were anything like my mother and
grandmother, i’d have loved to have been in the church the day
that the preacher said, “you need to remove these books from
your bible”… lol

:slight_smile:


#19

[quote=johnshelby]i still can’t quite grasp that… even tho it was in a different ‘section’…
the Old Testament is a section, and the New… to remove either
would have caused quite a stir… so why were those books
different…

[/quote]

Years (centuries) of downplaying. They would have viewed it as an appendix, or like having a copy of the Gospel of Mary included. If you don’t view them as inspired (or if you view them as spurious), what reverence would you have for them?


#20

Sixth, Pope Gregory the Great rejected apocrypha (540 - 604). “… books as ’ books which though not canonical, are received for the edification of the church”

The only point I find interesting above is the one “Pope Gregory the Great rejected the apocrypha”…I tend to doubt this but would like to investigate it further.

(jmt) This article is a good starting point:

Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?* A look at Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzen, Rufinus, St. Gregory the Great, St. John Damascene and St. Jerome* by Matt1618

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Gregory%20the%20Great,%20Pope,%20[590-604,%20A.D.]

Still looking into the “historical problems” with Tobit as the holic Encyclopedia affirms that the historicity of Tobit has - until recently - been long acceptance by Catholic Bible scholars. I remember from a discussion with an athiest the assertion that the Gosple of Luke contained a “demonstrable historical error” which apparently was not resolved by either Catholics or Protestants until after a lot of investigating - but it was resolved in favor of St Luke…so I’ll keep looking into this.

as always

Keep the Faith
jmt


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.