The Apocrypha: Should it be in or out?

[Tercel]

My other thread on the Apocrypha (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=3993) looks in danger of getting derailed. I intended that thread only for discussion of whether "the Catholics added the Apocrypha at Trent" or whether "the Protestants took it out". Several posters, naturally, wanted to discuss whether or not the Apocrypha should be in, which is a quite separate issue.

So that's what this thread is for:
Should the Apocrypha be in the Bible or not?


To get the ball rolling, my current view is: It doesn't really matter, the purpose of the Bible is to be of benefit to the Church and if parts of the Church see value in the Apocrypha it's fine for them to use it. Since I'm not an inerrantist I don't buy the arguments that it's "not inspired" or "not God's Word" etc.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 06:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87452#post87452)
Tercel:

My other thread on the Apocrypha (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=3993) looks in danger of getting derailed. I intended that thread only for discussion of whether "the Catholics added the Apocrypha at Trent" or whether "the Protestants took it out". Several posters, naturally, wanted to discuss whether or not the Apocrypha should be in, which is a quite separate issue.

So that's what this thread is for:
Should the Apocrypha be in the Bible or not?


To get the ball rolling, my current view is: It doesn't really matter, the purpose of the Bible is to be of benefit to the Church and if parts of the Church see value in the Apocrypha it's fine for them to use it. Since I'm not an inerrantist I don't buy the arguments that it's "not inspired" or "not God's Word" etc.

As evidenced by the drastically different doctrines posited by the Evangelical and Orthodox/Catholic communities, respectively, the nature of the Apocrypha should be of a serious concern. I suggest this because the debate behind prayer to the dead (as supported in 2 Macc. 12:45-46) ultimately comes down to whether not the Apocrypha is the word of God or not. If it is, then the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine is applicable today, and Evangelicals must forego their interpretations of such passages as Isaiah 8:19-22.

I find it strange that you have little or no concern for what is contained in the revelation of God's word to His people. I don't believe I need to indicate the importance of this beyond mentioning the punishments that are due, according to the Evangelical interpretation of Isaiah and the like, to those who contact the dead.

You might have gathered this already, but I am against the Apocrypha because it supports prayer to the dead.

~Matt

[nomad]

can you quote 2 maccabees 12:45-46? my KJVA doesn't have 2 mac 12:46; the chapter ends at 45. and also references praying FOR the dead, not TO the dead. so i'm thinking maybe the numbering is different or something, and i'd like to see the actual verses you are quoting (i've never read much of the apocrypha, just some of sirach and the additions to daniel)...

[Evangel]

i have a similar thread entitled catholicism in the religion 102 section. ill be back later.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 01:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88144#post88144)
nomad:

can you quote 2 maccabees 12:45-46? my KJVA doesn't have 2 mac 12:46; the chapter ends at 45. and also references praying FOR the dead, not TO the dead. so i'm thinking maybe the numbering is different or something, and i'd like to see the actual verses you are quoting (i've never read much of the apocrypha, just some of sirach and the additions to daniel)...

Here are the verses. I apologize for not having it before:

Excact context may be found here (http://www.scriptours.com/bible/bible.cgi?reference=2+Mac+12%3A46&x=14&y=12#12_46)

Douay-Rheims Bible

The Second Book of Machabees

Chapter 12

45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

I myself don't know why Catholics (in particular) reference Mac. II for prayer TO the dead, but I have seen it used in the past, hence my reference to Isaiah.

Perhaps I'll just confine myself to rejection of the Apocrypha because it speaks of praying for the dead, which is used as a proof of Purgatory (a doctrine which I believe might be a violation of the Gospel). Actually, I think I'll make this my stance, since I it's not profitable to debate prayer TO the dead when the passage clearly doesn't support TO, but merely FOR.

Anything else I can help you with?

~Matt

[nomad]

thanks (actually i had DRB, but forgot it had the apocrypha). that's weird, the KJV version appears the same, but splits the verses up differently (both DRB 12:45-46 are in KJV 12:45). and brenton doesn't include it at all.

it's a strange passage, that's for sure.

[Tercel]

As much as Protestants might want to deny it, I think the only sound interpretation of 2 Tim 1:16-18 is that it contains a prayer for a dead man. vs 16 strongly implies Onesiphorus is dead which makes vs 18 "May the Lord grant him mercy on that Day!" a prayer for a dead person.

Personally, I don't have a problem with prayer for dead people, since I accept the typical liberal protestant view that salvation or lack of it is not decided on at death, and what people do in the hereafter matters. (See for example, CS Lewis' The Great Divorce)

Of course, I don't think prayer for the dead actually helps the dead person... but that's only because I'm a liberal and I don't think prayer for a living person actually helps them either, but that's kind of another story...


As evidenced by the drastically different doctrines posited by the Evangelical and Orthodox/Catholic communities, respectively, the nature of the Apocrypha should be of a serious concern.Well since I disagree with virtually all Evangelical-only doctrines, guess who's side I'm on? :teeth:
Of course, that said, I disagree with all Catholic-only doctrines too.
I'm not convinced that it's the Apocrypha that makes the difference between the two groups though. Virtually all of the reasons that have lead me to reject my Evangelical upbringing in favour of liberalism/Orthodoxy have had nothing to do with the Apocrypha whatsoever, only with the illogicalness and incoherency of Evangelical doctrine.


I suggest this because the debate behind prayer to the dead (as supported in 2 Macc. 12:45-46) ultimately comes down to whether not the Apocrypha is the word of God or not.Only from the Evangelical point of view does this matter. The Orthodox/Catholics don't have Sola Scriptura so they would be happy having it as a doctrine whether or not it was decided to be in the Scriptures.


I find it strange that you have little or no concern for what is contained in the revelation of God's word to His people.If you're an Evangelical, then I'm not surprised. I'm simply not as happy as you to call the Bible "God's word", since the common understanding of that phrase implies ideas I strongly disagree with, and so I'm thus not particularly worried about what "God's word" contains.
"Rather than the Church deriving its authority from the Bible (as in Protestantism), Orthodoxy sees the Bible as deriving its authority from the Church. That is, the Bible is inspired because it is the product of the Church, which wrote it. The Church decided which books should be included in the Bible and which should be rejected."

As far as I'm concerned the Church can choose whatever books it feels are helpful for it to choose. For most Christians for the past eighteen centuries or so, that has included the Apocrypha.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 07:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89326#post89326)
Tercel:

As much as Protestants might want to deny it, I think the only sound interpretation of 2 Tim 1:16-18 is that it contains a prayer for a dead man. vs 16 strongly implies Onesiphorus is dead which makes vs 18 "May the Lord grant him mercy on that Day!" a prayer for a dead person.

What proof do you have that this isn't just a saying of affection, such as my saying "Remember ol' Nana? Ah, the Lord bless my dear old Grandma {who has passed away} because she was a great comfort to me," but is instead a literal prayer for the dead?


Personally, I don't have a problem with prayer for dead people, since I accept the typical liberal protestant view that salvation or lack of it is not decided on at death, and what people do in the hereafter matters. (See for example, CS Lewis' The Great Divorce)

I have not read the Great Divorce, but I got a fairly informed view of his after-death beliefs from A Grief Observed and it didn't catch Lewis stating that salvation wasn't decided at death (of course, I'm of the opinion that it is decided earlier in life).

Besides, what indication do you have from Scriptures that what you do after death can affect your salvation?

Of course, I don't think prayer for the dead actually helps the dead person... but that's only because I'm a liberal and I don't think prayer for a living person actually helps them either, but that's kind of another story...


Well since I disagree with virtually all Evangelical-only doctrines, guess who's side I'm on? :teeth:
Of course, that said, I disagree with all Catholic-only doctrines too.

Interesting.


I'm not convinced that it's the Apocrypha that makes the difference between the two groups though. Virtually all of the reasons that have lead me to reject my Evangelical upbringing in favour of liberalism/Orthodoxy have had nothing to do with the Apocrypha whatsoever, only with the illogicalness and incoherency of Evangelical doctrine.

We should discuss that illogicalness and incoherency sometime. I'm in the process of investigating Catholicism vs. Evangelicalism, so your thoughts would be appreciated.

Oh, and I'm also not of the opinion that all that separates the two groups is the Apocrypha, but is it a large part of it.


Only from the Evangelical point of view does this matter. The Orthodox/Catholics don't have Sola Scriptura so they would be happy having it as a doctrine whether or not it was decided to be in the Scriptures.

No, actually the Orthodox Church has a very high view of Scripture and has derrived, I believe, 100% of its doctrines from Scriptures.

Anyway


If you're an Evangelical, then I'm not surprised. I'm simply not as happy as you to call the Bible "God's word", since the common understanding of that phrase implies ideas I strongly disagree with, and so I'm thus not particularly worried about what "God's word" contains.
"Rather than the Church deriving its authority from the Bible (as in Protestantism), Orthodoxy sees the Bible as deriving its authority from the Church. That is, the Bible is inspired because it is the product of the Church, which wrote it. The Church decided which books should be included in the Bible and which should be rejected."

You say that the Church wrote and decided upon what the Scriptures should be. Perhaps you'd be able to produce the list of Scriptures that the Church holds today as canonical as a demonstration of this authority?

And, if they wrote the Scriptures, where does the authority of the Church originate from then?


As far as I'm concerned the Church can choose whatever books it feels are helpful for it to choose. For most Christians for the past eighteen centuries or so, that has included the Apocrypha.

Most Christians? I don't think so. Where are you reading your history? Even Luther's Catholic opponent Melancthon held that the Apocrypha was non-canonical during the Reformation. To say that "most" Christians held it a canonical is an utter misrepresentation of history, unless of course you don't mean to claim most Christian's thought it was canonical, but that they just thought it was good reading (which is something I'd agree with).

~Matt

[Tercel]

What proof do you have that this isn't just a saying of affection, such as my saying Remember ol' Nana? Ah, the Lord bless my dear old Grandma {who has passed away} because she was a great comfort to me, but is instead a literal prayer for the dead?It's certainly possible to interpret it either way, but IMO you're alternative requires a bit of stretching which is being done on purely presuppositional grounds.


I have not read the Great Divorce, but I got a fairly informed view of his after-death beliefs from A Grief Observed and it didn't catch Lewis stating that salvation wasn't decided at death (of course, I'm of the opinion that it is decided earlier in life).The Great Divorce is a hypothetical (but clearly fictional) "what happens after death". It is strongly implied that this scenario is supposed to be analogous to what Lewis believes happens after death. ie the details are false (involving a flying bus etc) but the theology is true: That people can be saved after death, that salvation is caused by what a person freely makes of themselves and not by beliefs or works, and that there exists a kind-of Purgatory. There are all pretty clearly spelt out.


Besides, what indication do you have from Scriptures that what you do after death can affect your salvation?:huh: Hmm... I'm not sure. Perhaps the statements in 1 Peter about the Gospel being preached to the dead (4:6). The Bible seems to have very little to say directly on the subject. I think most people's assumptions about whether or not salvation can happen after death tend to be logical extensions of the paradigm of sin/redemption/salvation they happen to hold.


We should discuss that illogicalness and incoherency sometime. I'm in the process of investigating Catholicism vs. Evangelicalism, so your thoughts would be appreciated.My thoughts are that they're two sides of the same coin and both wrong and you should convert to Orthodoxy or liberal Protestantism, or better yet both! :teeth: (Now there's incoherency for you...)
Yeah, I do have serious thoughts on the matter to, which I'm happy to discuss with you sometime. I'm quite busy at the moment though, so if you could wait two weeks that would be cool.


No, actually the Orthodox Church has a very high view of Scripture and has derrived, I believe, 100% of its doctrines from Scriptures.Er, no, it pretty definitely hasn't. Of course there is some leeway in how you define Orthodox "doctrines" since technically the only binding decisions on Orthodoxy are the 7 Eccumenical Councils. (But even their decisions aren't clearly demonstratably entirely derived from scripture) Orthodox doctrine in a wider sense is the "widely accepted teachings of the Church" or in reality "the writings of Orthodox believers which have been widely accepted within the Orthodox church". This includes some quite non-biblical things such as doctrines about Mary for one.


You say that the Church wrote and decided upon what the Scriptures should be. Perhaps you'd be able to produce the list of Scriptures that the Church holds today as canonical as a demonstration of this authority?The Church as a whole hasn't had an Eccumenical Council on the subject, but the Orthodox churches have come to a consensus over the years as to what is considered canon. Any Google search on the subject will bring you this list.

And, if they wrote the Scriptures, where does the authority of the Church originate from then?God.


Most Christians? I don't think so. Where are you reading your history? Even Luther's Catholic opponent Melancthon held that the Apocrypha was non-canonical during the Reformation. To say that "most" Christians held it a canonical is an utter misrepresentation of history, unless of course you don't mean to claim most Christian's thought it was canonical, but that they just thought it was good reading (which is something I'd agree with).Whether or not the Apocrypha was held canonical by a majority of Protestants and Catholics at the time of the Reformation, was not what I was referring to. (Given the number of Orthodox believers who accepted the Apocrypha, it might be incorrect to say that the majority of Christians rejected the Apocrypha at the time) I was saying that for the majority of Christian history, the majority of Christians have accepted the Apocryha. ie the time that only a minority accepted the Apocrypha was a minority of the time of Christian history.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 12:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89594#post89594)
Tercel:

It's certainly possible to interpret it either way, but IMO you're alternative requires a bit of stretching which is being done on purely presuppositional grounds.

And yours isn't either Tercel? What in the context makes my view any less plausible than yours? If you look at Scripture (minus the Apocrypha), your interpretation would be the one presupposing that prayer for the dead, an idea not present in Scripture in any other passages, should be read into this passage. If one had never heard of the concept of prayer for the dead, how do you think they would've taken this passage?


The Great Divorce is a hypothetical (but clearly fictional) "what happens after death". It is strongly implied that this scenario is supposed to be analogous to what Lewis believes happens after death. ie the details are false (involving a flying bus etc) but the theology is true: That people can be saved after death, that salvation is caused by what a person freely makes of themselves and not by beliefs or works, and that there exists a kind-of Purgatory. There are all pretty clearly spelt out.

I'd love to read it sometime.


:huh: Hmm... I'm not sure. Perhaps the statements in 1 Peter about the Gospel being preached to the dead (4:6). The Bible seems to have very little to say directly on the subject. I think most people's assumptions about whether or not salvation can happen after death tend to be logical extensions of the paradigm of sin/redemption/salvation they happen to hold.

I guess I would have to agree, and especially with the remark that Scripture doesn't have much to say about it.


My thoughts are that they're two sides of the same coin and both wrong and you should convert to Orthodoxy or liberal Protestantism, or better yet both! :teeth: (Now there's incoherency for you...)
Yeah, I do have serious thoughts on the matter to, which I'm happy to discuss with you sometime. I'm quite busy at the moment though, so if you could wait two weeks that would be cool.

Two weeks would be great for me as well.


Er, no, it pretty definitely hasn't. Of course there is some leeway in how you define Orthodox "doctrines" since technically the only binding decisions on Orthodoxy are the 7 Eccumenical Councils. (But even their decisions aren't clearly demonstratably entirely derived from scripture) Orthodox doctrine in a wider sense is the "widely accepted teachings of the Church" or in reality "the writings of Orthodox believers which have been widely accepted within the Orthodox church". This includes some quite non-biblical things such as doctrines about Mary for one.

From the Orthodox info. that I have read, it seems that there are two views about Scripture, and one of them is that all Orthodox doctrines can be implicitly found in it, and Tradition only serves as the interpreter of Scripture. The other is similar to the Catholic view of Scripture, and that both Tradition and Scripture contain the full deposit of the faith.

I guess you subscribe to the latter?


The Church as a whole hasn't had an Eccumenical Council on the subject, but the Orthodox churches have come to a consensus over the years as to what is considered canon. Any Google search on the subject will bring you this list.
God.

Hm...okay. I'll take your word for it.


Whether or not the Apocrypha was held canonical by a majority of Protestants and Catholics at the time of the Reformation, was not what I was referring to. (Given the number of Orthodox believers who accepted the Apocrypha, it might be incorrect to say that the majority of Christians rejected the Apocrypha at the time) I was saying that for the majority of Christian history, the majority of Christians have accepted the Apocryha. ie the time that only a minority accepted the Apocrypha was a minority of the time of Christian history.

My referencing people at the time of the Reformers wasn't to say that the only time the minority view (according to you) of the Apocrypha was held was during the Reformation. It was an example of what was typical for many throughout history. This is accentuated by the mere fact that although the Bibles in Church history contained the Apocrypha, they did not label them as canonical. There was wide-spread debate, and I do not believe that either was the majority view, especially during the Middle Ages.

Of course, most of this information comes from my secular Reformation history teacher. If you can quote scholars that disagree with me, I'd be willing to consider removal from this position.

~Matt

[GrayPilgrim]

InquisitorKind,

One quick note, Melancthon was Luther's friend and ally not opponent. In fact after Luther's death it is Philip Melancthon who structured adn created what came to be known as Lutehranism. Luther wrote often and extensively on predestination. Melancthon, didn't agree hence why it is not a major tennet of Lutheranism. I am guessing that you meant Eck or someone else.

GP

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 09:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89899#post89899)
GrayPilgrim:

InquisitorKind,

One quick note, Melancthon was Luther's friend and ally not opponent. In fact after Luther's death it is Philip Melancthon who structured adn created what came to be known as Lutehranism. Luther wrote often and extensively on predestination. Melancthon, didn't agree hence why it is not a major tennet of Lutheranism. I am guessing that you meant Eck or someone else.

GP

Uh...yeah...

:doh:

Second major blunder today...

I meant the Bishop who was in staunch opposition to Luther...I can't seem to find his name...

I checked my Reformation notes, and it's clear you are correct.

Thanks for the correction,
~Matt