Topic: The Apocrypha + the quest for authenticity

[Glock32]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about the Apocrypha. These are the "extra" books of the Bible found in the Old Testament used by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, but not by Protestants or Jews.

I started thinking on the subject lately due to one of Ann Barnhardt's missives recently posted on her site. This is one area where Barnhardt is irritatingly prone to straw man argument. She reduces Martin Luther's deletion of the Apocrypha from his translation of the Old Testament to basically "he wanted to be married and fornicate with women so he canned anything that he disagreed with". This is glib to the point of willful boorishness, in my opinion. I think it is intellectually dishonest to deny there were complex motivations for Luther and that he was seeking truth, even if one disputes his conclusions.  But it's still a legitimate question: why remove them, and on what theological basis?

It ties into a larger issue that has bothered me for quite some time, that being doctrinal legitimacy. The different branches of Christianity assert their particular version is the correct one, and the others' are wrong. The atheist concludes that this is merely proof that all of it is bogus, but I do not believe that at all. I take it as a matter of faith that Man is born fallen from the grace of God, and that God in human form allowed Himself to be crucified in order to bear this burden on Man's behalf. This salvation is freely available to all who accept it. All of Christianity is in agreement on that much. Yet they disagree on so much else. I reveal my own biases by stating that, in my view, much of this disagreement is on matters that tend to aggrandize Man and his institutions rather than the salvation of souls. But it nevertheless bothers me, because I want to serve the Lord and am continuously bombarded with contradictory information that all claims to be the genuine article.

Not to trivialize, but I recall an old episode of Star Trek. I can't remember which character, but he had an evil double. His companions had to dispatch the evil one, but both he and the double claimed to be the "real" person. It's a dilemma not unlike this. Honestly, the reason I have been dwelling on it is because I think we have all been considering our own mortality lately. Evil is upon us and I do not doubt that it will eventually have to be engaged directly.  Naturally, I want to know I am right with God before that time comes.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

I find it an interesting subject too. Here is a site that did a pretty good job on explaining it:

http://foundationsforourfaith.com/Foundationsforourfaith/HolyBible.htm

<The Old Testament was developed, i.e. canonized, over a long period of time.   Each book that is in what we now call the Old Testament was reviewed and approve by Jewish scholars shortly after being written.   This canon of the Old Testament grew over the years.   The last book to be written and canonized into the Old Testament was the book of Malachi around 400 B.C.    The Jews agreed that the last book of Scripture, Malachi, was written around 400 B.C.   In 95 A.D. there was a Christian council that met in Jamnia to, among other things, review the canonization of the Old Testament.   The outcome was that the committee merely ratified as the canon of the Old Testament those books that were already generally accepted as the Jewish canon nearly 500 years earlier.   Neither a book was added or deleted from the original Jewish canon.

The New Testament was developed in a similar fashion as the Old Testament.   These twenty-seven books were written in the last half of the first century.    They were originally written to specific churches or individuals, and then circulated among the various churches throughout what is now Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.   In validating those books that were to be considered the result of divine revelation, three widely recognized principles were used:

The writing had to have a recognized prophet or apostle as its author (or one associated them).
The writing could not contradict previous Scriptures.
The writing must have general consensus from the Church that it was of divine inspiration.
These writings were reviewed and accepted by the early churches as Scripture many times shortly after their writing. This early acceptance is evidenced by references to certain letters as being scriptural by other letters.   For example, Peter makes reference of Paul’s writings in his second epistle, “…as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”   (NKJ:   II Peter 3:15-16)   Other examples of such references would be Paul citing Luke’s gospel as Scripture (I Timothy 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7) and Jude quoting from Peter’s epistle (Jude 17; cf. II Peter 3:2).

Over several centuries, there were some debates on several of the New Testament books, but once the twenty-seven books were accepted, there have been no moves within the Church to either delete some of the books or to add others.   The twenty-seven books of our New Testament, though previously accepted by the Church at large, were ratified by the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).>

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

There are some interesting historical books, and often they contain stories about clearly Godly men.  But, should they be included as HOLY SCRIPTURE?  There are several reasons NOT to include those books. (For instance the Books of the Maccabees are pretty valuable for historical interests)  There are several tests I would think quite important, and generally the church as a whole agrees on these things, and this is stated from memory, not in any particular order:

Does it even claim to be from God?

Does it conflict with the known Word of God?

Has it things within it that have proven untrue?

Does it add to doctrine or support doctrine that is known?

Does it contain prophecy?

Books or letters written directly by the Apostles or Prophets are all clearly treated as scripture.  Even those by their direct friends or helpers are usually treated as scripture. But, those farther out, like the book of Thomas, are clearly not first or even second hand accounts and contain error. When it becomes hard to separate the truth from the myth it cannot be accepted as scripture.

[IronDioPriest]

Interesting question Glock, and informative answer CHF.

I've often wondered about many different extemporaneous quasi-biblical writings, their origins, and the process/justification used to eliminate them from the bible. History only tells us so much.

In my opinion, the biggest leap of faith we're asked to accept as Christians is not the existence of Jehovah/Yaweh, the Lordship of Christ, or the resurrection of/salvation through Christ. To me, the biggest leap is believing that the men who compiled the bible and decided what got in and what stayed out were so divinely inspired that they made no mistakes.

Because if we believe they made no mistakes in exclusion or inclusion - that they got the bible perfectly right according to His will - then we believe that they were perfectly divinely inspired. And if we believe they were perfectly divinely inspired, then we must also believe that all of the flawed men throughout the bible whom God used for the accomplishment of His will in both their successes and failures were imperfectly divinely inspired. On the one hand, God's will accomplished through use of human imperfection; on the other hand, God's will accomplished through perfect and absolute divine guidance.

If we question the perfection of their inspiration, we must logically question the perfection of the content of their work, even if we indeed accept that the work was divinely inspired. Because of all the examples in the bible of God using human imperfection for the accomplishment of His will, the possibility that the bible is another example of that is front and center in my mind.

I understand that God can move any way He chooses. But in that simple juxtaposition I find my biggest theological stumbling block. I find the perfection of biblical compilation a difficult thing to take on faith, although I accept it as a starting point without too much angst.

So these questions fascinate me even as they mystify me. I don't think we can ever know the answer while we are alive on this Earth. But I sure would welcome any thoughts that lead me outside my logic-loop. I love my faith, and understand that it does not necessarily adhere to the boundaries of logic. But I sure love it when it does, and sometimes struggle when it doesn't.

[AmericanPatriot]

Great topic.
Thanks for bringing it up

[Libertas]

Another illustration why the KISS principle is so useful.  If one applies CHF's criteria to the Apocrypha one should be able to glean what is useful and discard what may not be entirely divinely inspired.  I am familiar with some of the information in these other books but I have not made a serious attempt to study them, but I view them as an interesting appendix to the established canon.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

I

In my opinion, the biggest leap of faith we're asked to accept as Christians is not the existence of Jehovah/Yaweh, the Lordship of Christ, or the resurrection of/salvation through Christ. To me, the biggest leap is believing that the men who compiled the bible and decided what got in and what stayed out were so divinely inspired that they made no mistakes.

Because if we believe they made no mistakes in exclusion or inclusion - that they got the bible perfectly right according to His will - then we believe that they were perfectly divinely inspired. And if we believe they were perfectly divinely inspired, then we must also believe that all of the flawed men throughout the bible whom God used for the accomplishment of His will in both their successes and failures were imperfectly divinely inspired. On the one hand, God's will accomplished through use of human imperfection; on the other hand, God's will accomplished through perfect and absolute divine guidance.

If we question the perfection of their inspiration, we must logically question the perfection of the content of their work, even if we indeed accept that the work was divinely inspired. Because of all the examples in the bible of God using human imperfection for the accomplishment of His will, the possibility that the bible is another example of that is front and center in my mind.

I understand that God can move any way He chooses. But in that simple juxtaposition I find my biggest theological stumbling block. I find the perfection of biblical compilation a difficult thing to take on faith, although I accept it as a starting point without too much angst.

So these questions fascinate me even as they mystify me. I don't think we can ever know the answer while we are alive on this Earth. But I sure would welcome any thoughts that lead me outside my logic-loop. I love my faith, and understand that it does not necessarily adhere to the boundaries of logic. But I sure love it when it does, and sometimes struggle when it doesn't.

Good analysis. Consider that God is all powerful Did he not use Pharaoh and Judas for his will? Both men did grievous evil. but both served God's purpose. Likewise, the sins of the prophets and biblical heroes are recorded for OUR hope, not theirs.  My namesake, David, was a prophet and a King. God called him a "man after my own heart!" And yet he was also a murderer and an adulterer.  These examples are there to teach us.  And we have much to learn. Both the Godly men and the unGodly men are USED by God. The difference is their willingness. I pray to be a willing servant of the Most High God, and yet I am a flawed man.  I take comfort in the fact that my examples were also flawed. No greater example can be given that Moses, and yet he himself was not able to enter the promised land for his own personal sin of taking glory to himself, though he was thought to be the meekest of men.  What hope I find in the fact that God loves us, even when we are imperfect!  The very fact of the offer of forgiveness shows God's love and mercy.  And I find this faith building.  Yes, they were imperfect, but God protects HIS work and HIS Word! A mark of truth is that it contains even the unpleasant about the speaker.  It is the very fact that Jonah records his own sin and his own fear and his own hate that shows it true. He does not make himself the hero, but shows God's love and mercy to the repentant, even when he himself desired God destroy those he preached repentance to.  God stayed his hand of judgment, and the preacher of repentance was angry.   I find these things not a mark of doubt, but a sign of truth.  It is mythology that the hero is always perfect. In fact, only God is perfect. Men, certainly the men I know, are imperfect, even those who desire to serve God with all our hearts. And he has made provision for us, praise his Holy Name!

[Glock32]

Thanks for the info CHF. It is fascinating in its own right.

I just want to know (to the greatest extent possible a human being can know) that I have the right understanding of Christianity. I just feel the weight of my own mortality as never before. I am convinced this regime is maneuvering us all into the position of choosing to lick their boots or die resisting them.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

Thanks for the info CHF. It is fascinating in its own right.

I just want to know (to the greatest extent possible a human being can know) that I have the right understanding of Christianity. I just feel the weight of my own mortality as never before. I am convinced this regime is maneuvering us all into the position of choosing to lick their boots or die resisting them.

Oh, I agree. I study in fear of my own error. (Sometime perhaps we can discuss thoughts on how much error is acceptable?)  The scripture says "Study to find thyself approved!" And it is wisdom to search the scriptures. They also promise that within them are "All things pertaining to life and Godliness"

Certainly understanding the history and the problems shed light on the scriptures that address them, but the basics of salvation are simple, and require no knowledge of the history. 


1. We must HEAR the Word in order to be saved. (How can one believe or obey if he does not hear/read?)


 45It is written in the prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
John 6:45

14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the work of Christ.
Romans 10:14,17

3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.
Revelation 1:3

22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
James 1:22

2. One must BELIEVE!  (Why would one obey if he does not believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be?)


 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 11:6

24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James 2:24

16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16

24I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
John 5:24

29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
John 6:29

24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”
John 8:24

31They replied, “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household.”
Acts 16:31

3.  One must REPENT. (This word does get misunderstood. Many think it is sorrowfulness, but it is really turning as in turning from sin and toward God!)

 10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
II Corinthians 7:10

7I tell you that in the same way there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Luke 15:7

38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven.  And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38

19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord...
Acts 3:19

30In the past God over looked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Acts 17:30

20First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Acts 26:20

9..yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance.  For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.
10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
2 Corinthians 7:9,10


4. One must CONFESS.
   
 32Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in Heaven.
33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
Matthew 10:32,33

9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Romans 10:9,10

5. One must be Baptized! (The word originally meant immersed and has been changed by various denominations to mean various other things, but to be clear it meant immersed (Buried) when it was written.


16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16

38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven.  And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38

21...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
1 Peter 3:21,22

And lastly, be faithful unto death. (And we who remain and see the coming difficulties in our society need this promise more than most!)

Revelation 2:10
Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer: behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life.

[Glock32]

I appreciate it CHF. That is the core understanding I have as well. I always fall back on the fact that God has infinite mercy, and he wants all of His creation to choose salvation. That's why I have issues with groups that advocate salvation depending on highly technical, legalistic requirements. I just don't think God intends salvation to be a "Gotcha!" sort of thing.

I have mentioned before my own evolving spiritual life. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, and my understanding of the faith is mostly influenced by Baptist beliefs. In my late teens and much of my 20s, I drifted spiritually. I was basically a deist bordering on agnostic. In retrospect I can see that it was my own intellectual hubris, believing myself of superior education and intellect -- therefore too enlightened to believe the specifics of revealed religion. But it brought a gnawing emptiness, which I think is a perfect example of "the Lord is my shepherd" as it kept me from wandering further.

I am trying to become a more committed Christian. I have been bad about not going to church, I haven't been in years. That's where some of my consternation comes from. All these different denominations, some using their own version or translation of the Bible, with some like the Roman Catholic church saying only they offer the "full truth" of Christ's message. And others retort the same thing right back at them, so it's not a one sided thing. I guess that's why it's a matter of faith!

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

I attend at a congregation that HATES division (denominationalism) and tries to welcome everyone.  Most of us view Christianity as a path. Not everyone walks side by side. Some are farther down the path toward Christ than others. That does not give them the right to say to someone else they are not on the path. It means we should encourage people to come farther, but never discourage their journey.

In fact, if I have a problem with an incomplete follower, then I have a problem with myself. Everyday I learn more than I knew yesterday. Must I question yesterday's salvation? (Mine I mean.) If so, I must surely question today's salvation, because I have finally realized I do not know all there is to know about and from Christ and likely never will until I stand directly in his presence.

In that sense, as long as someone is moving TOWARD Christ, I do not divide myself from them, though I might have disagreements with whatever denomination they are serving in at the moment. As long as they study and grow, I hope everyone leaves denominationalism aside in the end.

(And on the "gotcha" thing, we were already got if that had been the goal. The goal is our salvation, so certainly God does not play gotcha. I admit as a child, I perceived both God and my parents that way though. I hope I have matured out of that.