www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Inaccuracies of the Apocryphal Books

Dear Father Deacon Edward,

One other point that could be made is that since it was the Church that established the Canon of the New Testament - to adhere to that Canon is ALREADY an act of trust in the Church and the Holy Spirit that guides it that the canon is both orthodox and ordained by God for use by Christians.

The various interpretations of Scripture that occur when we deny the inspired guidance of the Church as teacher have always been a stumbling block for me to even take Protestantism seriously.

The Lutherans, at one time, believed that if one got rid of Tradition and especially the Papacy, leaving only Scripture behind, that EVERYONE would believe as they did, so convinced they were of the obvious correct interpretation of Scripture that was there for all to see without any extra interference from the Church to interpret things.

The Lutherans only returned to the full New Testament at the beginning of the 1700's.

It is also worth noting that in the 19th century there was a grass-roots movement among the Anglicans in England to petition the Archbishop of Canterbury to include the Letters of Abgar to Christ in the canon of the King James Bible!

Anglicans kept framed copies of the Face of Christ together with a copy of the exchange between our Lord and King Abgar. King Abgar was going blind and, having heard about Christ, wrote a letter to Him asking Him to come to Edessa and cure him. He also suggests that Christ might consider living in his city as his most honoured guest!

In the letter that came back to Abgar, our Lord tells him that He will send a disciple of his to him to heal him - and this was Thaddeus and the translation of the Icon of Christ not made with human hands (on the basis of which ALL icons of Christ are made in the Eastern and Western Churches to this day) is celebrated in our calendar on August 29th as the "Third Feast of the Saviour" in August.

So, clearly, the Anglicans not only believed that the canon of Scripture is by the authority of the Church - they even wanted their Primate to make one more addition to their Bible within their "local canon."

And, we should add, that this movement to have that extra-canonical writing included in the King James New Testament by the scriptural translation work of the Anglican scholar and saint, Henry Martyn, who worked among the "Orientals." Through his work, Anglicans became acquainted with the Correspondence of Abgarus with Christ as this was part of the deuterocanonical New Testament of the . . . Armenian Orthodox Church.

When Henry Martyn died, even though he was an Anglican, he was honoured by the Armenian Church as if he were one of their own bishops - his body was dressed in full episcopal canonical vestments! And the Anglican Church has since listed Henry Martyn in its own calendar of saints and worthies.

IF the Bible can be correctly interpreted without the Church, then why do the various (and many) Protestant denominations insist on preaching sermons to interpret scripture, on bible study guides etc.?

If the Bible stands on its own, why not just distribute Bibles - and do that alone?

But even if theology was not the issue here, the view of classical Protestantism stands condemned on simple social-historical foundations - ANYTHING that is written has a context that is social i.e. comes from a community that recognizes and canonizes scriptures, in this case.

To take something out of that context, in this case, out of the context of the interpretive framework of the Church's and the Fathers' teaching, is to render it, any document, cut off from the living well-springs that continue to imbue its words with the meanings intended by God through His Church.

And, let's also consider this, whenever St Paul makes reference to Scripture in his own writings - what is St Paul actually referring to?

Is he referring to the books of the New Testament? No, he cannot be as these have not yet been established.

He is, in every instance, referring ONLY to the books of the Old Testament as the written Word, but goes on to include the "unwritten" verbal accounts of the life of the Lord Jesus and also some of his own written letters that are circulating among the early Christian communities.

Protestantism seems to be of the view that the Bible is not only an account of salvation history, but that it is also a rational,factual history of events, outside of which is only falsehood.

There were books that were perfectly orthodox, but which were not included in the New Testament NOT because of any errors they contained (even though there were also heretical books being circulated under the names of the saints and apostles by various heretics, all of which were condemned by the Church i.e. the "gospel of Thomas"). They were not included because the Church preferred to choose those writings that were the oldest from antiquity etc.

But this did not preclude the early Church from using the factual and orthodox content of those books in its liturgy. At no time did the Church deny that what those orthodox extra-canonical New Testament books contained was "falsehood!"

What the Church knows and celebrates in the lives of St Andrew, St Joseph, St John the Evangelist and others actually comes from the extra-canonical books concerning the lives of these great saints.

When the Scottish Presbyterian Church celebrates St Andrew, it is doing so on the basis of the extra-canonical book on the life of St Andrew that was once read in the early church!

AND, finally, (Father Deacon Edward, are you still awake? ), when the Anglicans published their King James Bible, they, at the outset, INCLUDED the deuterocanonical books of the Maccabees etc. to be read in church as being edifying!

So even this early Protestant canon of scripture contradicts the later view among the Protestants that what is uncanonical is false, wrong and even potentially spiritually injurious.

To this day, the Assyrian Church of the East has only 22 New Testament books.

I'll stop now . . .

Alex

Dear Alex:

I have a "replica edition" of the 1611 KJV. The publishers photocopied every page, and that's what they printed. It's wonderful to look at, and most enlightening, especialy when dealing with the KJV-only crowd.

And, yes, the deuterocanonicals are there for all to see.

Edifying, indeed.

Fr. Deacon Edward (who was edified at birth with the name my parents gave me).

Well, actually, there is one. Luther added the word "alone" to his translation of Scripture into German so that it did, indeed, read that we are saved by "faith alone."

Fr. Deacon Edward

Dear Father Deacon Edward,

Well, yes, Luther set a precedent, didn't he? Although I think we'd be hard-pressed to find an "Imprimatur" at the front!

That's why I told you the Bible I was quoting from was a Catholic one - I'm sure I'd find translations like, "And I say to you that you are Peter, my first Pope!" And, "I tell you, you will not leave Purgatory until all is paid off in indulgences!"

In a recent "discussion" with Jehovah's Witnesses, I came across one of their achilles' heels - their own translation of the Scriptures and the famous "And the Word was a god."

When they began quoting their memorized verses at me, I simply told them, "Yes, if I accepted your version of the scriptures, I'm sure I would be a Jehovah's Witness too, pounding on people's doors and otherwise making a general nuisance of myself along with you."

"But since I believe the real Bible, the Bible that even objective atheist and agnostic scholars of Greek and Hebrew acclaim is the real translation from the original languages, then I am Catholic Christian, the true faith which, if someone knowingly does not accept, cannot be saved!"

At some point, the gloves have to just come off, Father Deacon!

And are you named for St Edward the Confessor or St Edward the Passion-bearer/Martyr?

Alex

Is there a St. Carson anywhere?

CDL

let me deal with the both of you gentlemen here. I have a Masters in Biblical Studies from an independent and fundamental Baptist seminary, that and plus being a (Eastern) Catholic, I can see where both of you are coming from.
to point out textual errors is pointless. it does not change the teaching of Holy Scripture. one can point out the same problems in the Gospels as to just how many people were at the tomb of the Risen Christ. does that change the fact of Christ's resurrection and that at least one person saw the empty tomb? I think not.
to say that the Bible is a book about the faith by the faithful plays into the hands of the liberals. they do not see the Bible as the God inspired, inerrant and infallible written Word of God, as is shown in ll Timothy 3:16, and it's inerrancy is relative in what Scripture proposes to teach.I have no use for the idea that it is about the faith by the faithful. faith in error does not make error truth. thus to see the Bible as a collection of pious opinions and wishful thinking will not do. it is in the Bible that we have the testimony of Christ, it is the revelation of God to humankind, and that revelation has its completion in the Incarnation. I can see for myself in the New American Bible that the Catholic editors have danced to the tune of the liberal Protestant critics who have torn apart the Bible for what agenda, I do not know. they are in the same league with the ilk of the Jesus Seminar that seeks to shred the Gospels to create a new and improved politically correct Jesus that no one wants. I will say to the credit of the Catholic editors and scholars that they do hold to the fact that the Bible is inspired by God, and does not go to to the extreme of it being a book about the faith.
as for the idea of "faith alone", I do not see the word "alone" in the Greek, and honestly don't know how Lutther pulled that one off. it does say in Ephesians 2:8,9 that "by grace are ye saved through faith, it is the gift of god, and not of works, lest any man should boast", but the very next verse tells us that we are created for good works. I did post a remark about easy believism a week or two ago and referred to Bonhoffer's critique of cheap grace. I see the whole question of salvation as ulttimate faith in the grace of God through Christ, the allowing of the Holy Spirit to change us (theosis) into the Image of Christ, and to testify of what Christ has done in one's life by a life of obedience to His Will and to do those things that Christ calls us to do, not for the means of salvation,but to effect His Will in this world.
Much Love,
Jonn
P.S. oh, I am aware that the Apocrypha is in the 1611 KJV, and so were my profs, we had a smile about that when talking about KJV only people who use not the 1611, but tthe 1769 edition.

Dear Professor Carson,

Yes, indeed, there are Saints for "Carson."

"Carson" is derived from "Son of Carr" or it can be "Kerr" or "Cyr" (i.e. "lord").

So any St Cyrus would be appropriate, if I'm not mistaken, even though the original Persian means "sun" (so both parts of your name are covered off!) such as St Cyrus, patriarch of Constantinople 8 January, St Cyrus and John 31 January (these are mentioned daily in the Liturgy), St Cyrus brother of Emperor Theodosius the Great, 2 July.

Alex

Dear Friends,

If this has been posted before, please forgive me.

Here is an excellent article by a former Protestant pastor, now Orthodox priest, on "Sola Scriptura" and the Orthodox Catholic position:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

Must reading for anyone, but especially if you are a Protestant pastor!

Alex

what did I just post, Alex, what did I just post! dude, send me the article in a PM , E mail, whatever. when I have the time, I don't right now, I want to print up that glorious article, thanks, Alex!
Much Love,
Jonn

Dear John,

I didn't know you were a Protestant pastor!

The article can be downloaded from the above link directly.

I'm technologically challenged otherwise . . .

Cheers, er, Reverend!

Alex

St Edward, King and Confessor.

Fr. Deacon Edward (who is, himself, just a commoner, a lowly servant -- but don't get me started on my humility or I'll rail on for pages and pages...)

I wonder if Mr. Badal can come up with a worthy response, instead of jotting down one-line non sequiturs and sundry thoughts and statements that have little to do with the issue at hand, ironically an issue that he started...

And your salvation is certainly not secured, Mr. Badal.

Logos Teen

Mr. Moderator,

Please see the last posting by the Teen of the Incarnation. Not pleasant or charitable words.

To: Teen of the incarnation:

Here are some initial thoughts about the apocryphal writings. You used some crass words and I wonder if this is acceptable by the moderator.

1.While there may be some indication that the NT make some indications to the Apocryphal books (Hebrews 11:35 may be discussed in 2 Macc. 7, 12) and the pseudepigraphal books (Jude 9 which may discuss the Testament of Moses) while 2 Timothy 3:8 also makes another citation from Testament of Moses), and Jude 14-15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9.

2.New Testament authors often quote the Septuagint. See also other quotes from the Codex Sinaiticus (4th Century), Codex Alexandrinus 5th Century; and Codex Vaticanus 4th Century.

3.We also know that several of the apocryphal books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

4.Certain Church Father declare their authoritative value (Eastern Church Fathers: Clement of Alexander�Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom); Origen (Epistles of Jeremiah); Irenaeus (Wisdom).

5.Finally the Council of Trent in 1546 canonizes the Apocryphal Writings as divinely inspired.

In regards the first statement:
1.Even though the authors may allude or potentially quote from the Extra biblical records, it is never attested by the author as Scripture. Even though these books communicate truth, it does not mean they are divinely inspired. Jude 14-15 presents the serious exegetical difficulty, but I believe it can be handled easily. Jude is simply referring to Enoch�s statement as a factual literature record. Shakespeare wrote beautiful poetic plays which are often quoted in writings. The second observation that the author is simply working with this audience to capture their attention. In a sense, he is building a case against them. Third, Jude is simply agreeing by what Enoch said, but not declaring it to be Scripture.

2.The second statement indicates influence during the 4th and 5th Century was motivated by the Church Fathers. However, this does not substantiate the authority behind the books. Augustine would be a good example (354-430) to accept apocryphal writings. Yet, Augustine had some serious heretical views which would later be challenged. He believed in purgatory.
3&4. Since the literature was being discussed by scholars and communities, the importance of these records reflects how individuals handled literature. However, this does not prove the writing to be inspired. It simply means individuals felt the writings displayed an important flavor of the time.

5.Certain Church father had much uncertainty about the OT during the first century. It seems later that the Council of Trent authorizes the Apocryphal writings in order to push a theological direction in the case of �Purgatory� and praying for the dead (2 Macc. 12:44-45).

However the evidence for the Apocryphal writings not receiving full canonization because of the following reasons:

1.Jesus only attests the Hebrew Bible as divinely authoritative (Matthew 23:34-35; Luke 11:50-51). He never mentions Apocryphal writings.

2.The OT do not clam the Apocryphal writings as Yahweh�s words (Numbers 35:1; Joshua 1:1-3; Isaiah 1:10-12, 18-19; 24; Jeremiah 1:1-3; Ezek. 1:2-3; Hos. 1:1-3; Joel 1:1-3.

3.The OT is confirmed by other sources: 2 Esdras 14:45-48; Josephus Contra Apion, Melito (excluding Esther); Jerusalem List (All 39 books) Origen (22 Books).

4.Philo from Alexandria never quotes or identifies the Apocryphal Writings as authoritative (CF Hornemann).

5.The inaccuracies of Tobit (1:3-5) and other errors show human error, rather than God superintending the Human author in its composition.

6.The theological positions stated in 2 Macc. 12:43-45 does not correspond with other NT books. See Hebrews 9:27.

7.Other church father strongly built a case against the Apocryphal writings as inspired (Melito, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius.

8.The Apocryphal writings have never been universally accepted by the church.

9.The earliest list of the OT canon comes from Melito in c. 170. This does not include the Apocryphal writings.

10.Jerome argued against the Apocryphal writings.

11.Martin Luther disagreed against the authenticity of the Book of Maccabees supporting his belief through the NT.

12.The Continuity of Scripture always flows together. The Apocryphal writings only result in more questions.

13.The Scripture teach that salvation is only obtained by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Works is outward expression of the inward change. Believers should be characterized by their good works. Good works does not save the individual. The OT/NT helps to solidify this theological argument, while the Apocryphal writings stand in opposition.


Peace, Grace and Mercy!

Joel

I think we have exhausted any avenue for further fruitful discussion on this topic. Joel has stated his personal opinions and the other contributors to this thread have responded with the testimony of the Church both East and West, along with lucid examples from other Scriptural texts.

Accordingly, since Joel's views are primarily based on personal interpretation, which is the controlling criterion and hermeneutic in Protestant exegesis, I would submit that this topic has reached its apex and should be discontinued before we see its nadir.