History of the Apocrypha in the Biblical Canon - Stephen Russell - Ep. 067
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2024
- How has the Apocrypha been viewed throughout Church history? What can the Apocrypha add to one's understanding of the New Testament? In this episode, Stephen Russell shares the history of the canon, specifically considering how the Apocrypha was formed. Mr Russell ends the episode by presenting his view of the Apocrypha as being useful for history, but likely not scriptural.
This is the 67th episode of Anabaptist Perspectives, a podcast, blog, and TH-cam channel that examines various aspects of conservative Anabaptist life and thought.
Our podcast: anabaptist-perspectives.capti...
Read essays: anabaptistperspectives.org/blog/
Listen to essays as a podcast: essays-for-king-jesus.captiva...
Facebook: / anabaptistperspectives
Support our work: anabaptistperspectives.org/do...
About: anabaptistperspectives.org/about
The views expressed by our guests are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Anabaptist Perspectives or Wellspring Mennonite Church.
All sorts of people abuse many parts of both the NT and OT which are not under question, yet we don't throw out those books just because someone else abused them. The same applies for the books which are slanderously called apocrypha.
Yup
Protestants have done a disservice to themselves by turning inspiration and canonicity into a black/white issue rather than a scale, which is a more historically accurate view--Athanasius himself, despite his Easter letter, quotes Apocryphal writings consistently and makes no distinctions between them and the other books. In my opinion it is also odd to suggest that Tobit spiritually misses the point when it is full of messianic imagery and themes (Athanasius quotes it in defense against the Arians, too).
The standard OT contains the apocrypha which is why it was even able to be removed in the first place. It doesn't matter how reading it makes you feel, the fact is that it was in the scriptures that the early church used from the very beginning.
so... read it.
No it wasn’t. The ancient Jews never regarded them as cannon. The Apocrypha wasn’t put in with the other books till almost 400 A.D which of course the Catholic are the ones who did that. It was rejected by Jews and 1st century Church Christians.
Apocryphal
Laodiceans
Chapter 01 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with your spirit.
And cause this epistle to be read unto them of COLOSSAE, and the epistle of the COLOSSIANS TO BE READ unto you.
Colos 2:1 For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at LAODICEA, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;
Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the MYSTERY of God, which is Christ;
Colos 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Colos 1:26 make clearly that only to the SAINTS(Rev 14:12) of God’s last church LAODICEA(Colos 2:1) is given God’s MYSTERY called CHRIST(Colos 2:2) on which is invested God’s WISDOM(Colos 2:3 Prov 8:1) which have a beginning(Prov 8:22-25 John 1:1) about the WORD(John 1:1) made Sanctuary in John 1:1,14 explained in John 2:21.
AFTER Galatians 2:20 1John 3:9 1John 5:18 being a loyal catholic or ortodox having the perpetual system of sins confessing to a priest you MUST perpetually bring Christ to a priest to confess His sins because AFTER Galatians 2:20 1John 3:9 1John 5:18 you are died in Gal 2:20 and YOU CANNOT sin anymore(1John 3:9 1John 5:18) and because after Galatians 2:20 ONLY Christ is living in you ONLY Christ have to confess sins to a priest.
&Because Colos 1:26 is making clearly that God’s MYSTERY called CHRIST(Colos 2:2) is given only to God’s church of SAINTS(Rev 14:12 of Laodicea-Colos 2:1) must be clearly for you that AFTER Galatians 2:20 1John 3:9 1John 5:18 continuing to sin you CANNOT be IDentified by God in Rev 14:12 as being His church of SAINTS who KEEP the commandments OF God having Jesus’s’ FAITH(Hebr 11:1).
&So is clearly that the WISDOM(Colos 2:3 Prov 8:1) about God’s MYSTERY called CHRIST(Colos 2:2) CANNOT be given to you (whathever religion you have).
&So is clearly that as Catholic and orthodox you have your perpetual system of sins confession to a priest so that perpetually YOU CANNOT BE IDentified by God in Revelation 14:12 as being His church of SAINTS who KEEP the commandments OF God having the FAITH OF Jesus.
&This ist why continuing to sin AFTER Galatians 2:20 1John 3:9 1John 5:18 you can see yourself in Revelation 14:7 Rev 18:4,5 ONLY AS LIAR(sinner) calling the world to COME OUT FROM SINS of the ecumenically united Babylon(Rev 17:5 Rev 18:2).
Hello sinners COME OUT FROM SINS because I am a SINNER AFTER Galatians 2:20 1John 3:9 1John 5:18 !!.
Not only Rev 18:4,5 but also Rev 14:7 ONLY make clearly that ONLY God’s SAINTS can be send by God to call the world to NOT SIN ANYMORE(1John 3:9 1John 5:18 after Gal 2:20) which means to KEEP God’s commandments, which means to FEAR God in Rev 14:7.
And so is clearly that AFTER Galatians 2:20 1John 3:9 1John 5:18 whatever religion you have being a sinner until the second coming of Jesus you will be seen by God in Revelation 14:6-12 Rev 18:1-7 as being as sinner you are THE LIAR(Rom 3:4) until the second coming of Jesus to place you forever in Rev 21:8.
Better you start seeing yourself only in 2Thes 2:9-12 Matt 25:12 Matt 7:23 as being strong deluded in Rev 14:6-12 Rev 18:1-7 sinning continually AFTER Galatians 2:20 1John 3:9 1John 5:18 pretending that you are calling the world to come out from sins of the ecumenically united Babylon(Rev 18:2 Rev 17:5,18.
How long time you will continue insulting CHRIST IN YOU(Colos 1:27) after your death in Galatians 2:20(Rom 12:1) so that you CANNOT SIN ANYMORE(1John 3:9 1John 5:18) as being born again of God’s word remaining IN YOU God’s seed(1John 3:9 Luke 8:11).
How long you will teach your churches that AFTER Galatians 2:20 1John 3:9 1John 5:18 Rev 14:12 they are the sinners in Rev 14:7 Rev 18:4,5 calling the world to come out of sins.
After years of studying your self-made theology OF THE Bible please don’t tell me that you will not be able to read even the next verses saying that:
In 1John 1:8 WE HAVE SIN...
In 1John 1:9 WE CONFESSED OUR SINS and WE ARE CLEANSED in Galatians 2:20(Rom 12;1 1John 3:9 1John 5:18) so that WE CANNOT SIN ANYMORE(1John 1:7).
&This ist why im 1John 1:10 we have only the past word SINNED referring only to our past sinful life before Galatians 2:20 when being as beginners in 1John 2:1 we WAS in needs of Jesus as Mediator for sins(1Tim 2:5).
Any other verses you cannot find to delude yourself(2Thes 2:9-12) saying that you are still a sinner even AFTER Galatians 2:20 1John 3:9 1John 5:18 Rev 14:12 etc...
Athanasius hast 67 books in his List. Esther is out, baruch and the letter of Jeremiah was inside. He also called, that the Long Part of daniel and Esther are inspired. The council of Rom, Hippo and Karthago had the books like makkabean, Tobit and so own, in their Canon list. That is History! God bless you
I grew up Lutheran, and I feel that Luther was against JAMES, because it stressed works as a show of Faith, and he didn't want people to feel that they could work off their sins...
Martin Luther called the book of James an 'epistle of straw', if I remember correctly, so your feeling is on the spot!
You follow traditions of men. In your case Luther. An excommunicated Catholic priest
According to what I have learned about the apocrypha, the jews did remove the apocrypha because it exposed the sins of the elders like the sinners against Susana in the book of Daniel extra two chapters.
It also pushed Jews to christianity
Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
It’s always quite rich when Protestants use St Athanasius as their source for the canon when he did not believe in sola scriptura and believed in a hierarchal church and the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
Yeah. We get the irony :-)
@AnabaptistPerspectives all protestants practice a Christian faith "a la cart"
They look at the buffet that is the fullness of faith in the Catholic church and chose what their appetite pleases
That is not true. He of course believed in a hierarchical church, which is unbiblical, but forgivable since he was a fallible human being, like all of us. Yet he also believed in the primacy and sufficiency of the Bible, i.e. sola scriptura, and he certainly did not submit to the papacy. How else would he be one of the ONLY ones to resist, on the basis of Scripture, the entire "infallible" rest of the Church, the "infallible" Council and the "infallible" Roman bishop, who also excommunicated Athanasius when they, as "infallible" interpreters of the Word of God, followed the heresy of Arianism? Ironically, however, he is seen today as a defender of the faith, a saint and a hero by the same people whom he resisted and whom, in their view, he unjustly rebuked. Athanasius' life and teachings are probably some of the strongest arguments against the Roman Church.
Documentary for sources and a more detailed refutation of Rome: th-cam.com/video/utIAnY5I8CU/w-d-xo.html (Disclaimer: Tainted with Calvinist heresy, but otherwise fine.)
Luther believed that at one time too. Quite rich indeed.
The Anabaptist are God's best people, humbly speaking!
God has no biases when it comes to all his children and every human is his baby. No right path, all works from all religions and faiths are part of a bigger whole.
doesn't sound very humble....js.
What a disgusting but very prevalent view. This guy is just saying what 90% of Anabaptist folks think. Most just don't say it out loud. They are racist and even chester weaver illustrates this when he speaks about "our people" with such joy
Well, right behind the Catholics, anyway!
I love brother Russell so much.
Thanks so much for sharing your valuable thoughts. You do not deny the importance of the Hidden books, but you don't affirm that they are scripture. I would say that history is really the only way to see the importance of these separate books.
Thanks, Christine.
Thank you for the knowledge.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you
You're welcome, Terrance.
At 22 minutes, Mr Russell says he thinks Tobit "seems to miss the point, spiritually, for us". To that I reply "what??!!!"
If we understand the Torah, and paid close attention to the heart of the 613 commands from Moses, and the echo of that heart in the Prophets, then we ask "what narrative BEST illustrates Moses' instruction played out?" The book of Tobi, hands down. No OT Israelite better illustrates righteousness.
The Book of Sirach has very good advice reminds me of Proverbs . I would encourage people to read that book Maccabees has the story of Hanukah .
Audio's a bit low
Ahh yes, “the silent years” debate. So explain then why Jews in Alexandria compiled the Septuagint that included these books, if it wasn’t inspired?
What ugly comments. Thank you for the presentation. It was very good
Thank you for the feedback.
Anglicans still use it in daily services. Just yesterday the Wisdom of Solomon 9 was read at Canterbury Cathedral. Also my Anglican Bible contains the extra orthodox books rejected by Roman canon of 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees. The apocrypha like the Septuagint is not uniform, the canon differs between churches. Anglicans follow the East not Rome! 2 Esdras is amazing.
Thanks for filling in these details, Steve.
For those of you who want a copy of a full 80 book Holy Bible, just type "King James Version with Apocrypha" into your search engine. I have one and love it.
80 ? 66 + 7 = 73...what are the other 7 books ?
He forgot to mention that the Deuterocanonicals were part of the Septuagint which was a Greek Translation of the OT which many authors of the NT reverered and quoted
But what about the prophecies?
The Jews of Jesus time didn’t agree on canon. There were around 8 different sets of scriptures floating around. This is mentioned a little bit in the gospels. The sadducees only believed in the first five books. The canon that the Jews and Luther used didn’t become Jewish canon until the 2nd century. Almost 100 years after Christ had come and gone.
Has this person considered 2Esdras or read it. He lived around 420BC during the said silent period of 400yrs. In 2Esdras chapter one, it clearly states “The word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Go and declare to my people their evil deeds’…”. As one can see, it clearly is a prophetic word. Further in the same book the prophecy of the Messiah is mentioned and specifically stating that he will come within 400yrs and be killed also. This was obviously prophetic and is on point both scriptural and historically.
Be blessed all - Shalom
Thank you for filling in these details.
Josephus characterizes the 22 books as canonical because they were divinely inspired; he mentions other historical books that were not divinely inspired and that he therefore did not believe belonged in the canon.[16]Larue, Gerald A. (1968). Old Testament Life and Literature. Allyn and Bacon. pp. Ch. 31.
Hi James. Thanks for this tip. I wasn't aware of Josephus statement. It seems to be form his work "Against Apion." ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete/complete.iv.i.html
@@AnabaptistPerspectives Welcome. My elder son Jonathan did a YT video on it with Trent Horn. Blessings.
Adjust the volume.
Yes. Audio on our old videos lacked.
The Septuagint is the elephant in the room.
The Septuagint is certainly worth studying. We made an episode about it here: th-cam.com/video/Qs_5Kz-5k3k/w-d-xo.html
@10:12 Catholics assembled the NT for Christianity thru the Holy Spirit
God bless pope Damasus 🙏
Athanasius of Alexandria's list of authoritative books was not an authoritative list on the rest of the church. He didn't have that type of authority. He gave the list for the church he oversaw, not for the whole church. That was his personal opinion and that's fine, but not authoritative on the rest of the Church.
There are other lists by other church's which are prior to the Athanasius of Alexandria, which don't line up exactly with the Protestant Canon. And that's fine too.
Also, the fact is that the Apostles handed down the LXX which contained the apocrypha. The Jews rejected these books in question after they were used to prove Jesus as the Christ.
Remember, the Jews eventually rejected anything after Malachi, which includes the apocrypha, but that also includes John the Baptist, Jesus and all His Apostles. So don't base it on their decision. Especially since this decision didn't solidify until late in the 1st century due to their rivalry with Christianity. Jerome believed the Jews, but that was in the late 4th century, and rejected the historic practice of the church to use the LXX and thus the apocrypha came into question. Even then he was still alone in this decision and received a lot of criticism from other Christians.
The fact that the church uniformly used the LXX and quote the apocrypha as just another part of the OT is the tradition that the Apostles handed down. Removing the apocrypha is removing part of what the Apostles handed down and the church preserved from the earliest times till the Protestants took them out.
Athanasius says so. Don’t question Athanasius.
God doesn’t decide what books belong. Athanasius decides. Athanasius is God.
Jerome who translated the Greek to Latin, absolutely refused to put those books in, because they were not inspired, but he was overruled by the RCC. They had to canonize the Apocrypha at the council of Trent finally, because all of their false doctrines were contained therein. Purgatory, paying for salvation, indulgences, works based salvation, and praying to dead people.
Jerome acquiesced to the Spirit-led and undivided Church. The books were not canonized at Trent, they were included in every single Apostolic Church, from the Latins to Eastern, Oriental, to the Church of the East. This presentation of the development of the canon is quite biased--everybody cites Athanasius Easter letter as a proof for using a Judaized canon while ignoring his references to Deuterocanonical books as holy scripture. Also, synergy isn't works based salvation, that is a common protestant strawman. And one more: the saints aren't dead. Your beliefs are the reason why your church produces no saints, because it is dead.
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402])- Jerome
The apocrypha doesn't teach prayers for the dead. The early church didn't teach prayer for the dead yet they considered the apocrypha part of the OT.
Only the last 130 years when the bible fell prey to consumer Christianity.
The Church absolutely did teach prayers for the dead, it always has and its a practice that predates the foundation of the Church.
Are you sure about that? Prayer for the dead is an ancient Christian practice since day one, even before the canon of scripture was compiled.
The Jews prayed for the dead. That’s in Maccabee’s. Like 200+ years before Jesus
Talk about not knowing what the heck you are taking about..
2 .Maccabees 12 44
(for if he had not hoped that those who had fallen would be resurrected, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
@12:24 how is that not blasphemy???
Let's take away the books that were in Jesus and the apostles Bible (the septuagint) to cut corners and save money
Wow 😔
Didn't Jesus read from the Septuagint? And didn't the Septuagint include the apocrypha?
Hi Timothy. There's a case to be made that Jesus was familiar with the Septuagint which includes the apocrypha.
We made an episode about that here: th-cam.com/video/_n7oHBcWM7I/w-d-xo.html
Jerome.. "who was very good at Latin" ?? by page 3 of Genesis that is WELL refuted... dude did not even know his pronouns!
That’s interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.
@17:52 that's why Christian denominations are traditions of man
If it goes against the official word of God and if it ain't a part of the original Torah it is no good.
1 Corinthians 14
33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
Geneva Bible excluded the Apocrypha in 1600
Interesting!
Apochrypha were never part of the Hebrew Cannon. Only Enoch and Tobias was found with the dead sea scrolls but only in Aramaic, not Hebrew.
Right. The apocryphal books were written in Greek.
Why does Catholicism try to insert the apocryphals into Jesus’s gospel? Praying to the dead, purgatory
But just RCC, EO as well. Also, there are several times Christ and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint as well as the deuterocanonical.
@@kyz8390 Christ & the apostles did not quote from the apocryphals. Apocryphals r of another doctrine. What verse did they quote?
@@kyz8390 The deuterocanonical means “other book & is Greek version of OT & never says “thus say the Lord” or “ It is written” . God gave us commands by His word to His chosen people the Hebrews. We’re to stay with God’s prophets in Old Testament which pre tells of the savior of the New Testament.
@@virginiagraham850 you can research multi websites and see where the truth leads you. At least 40 times, gospels and letters. Even Christ himself quotes them.
@@virginiagraham850 I’m not even sure what to say to this.
Jesus quotes Tobit and Tobit is directly referred to numerous times in the NT. This is ridiculous. 400 silent years? That paradigm
is very recent to when protestants removed the Septuagint “Apocrypha” from the original English bibles: Tindale, Geneva, 1611 KjV all had it. No one had this paradigm that there was scripture and partial scripture then. Tired of these same seminary talking points. I was expecting more nuanced arguments
Thanks for the feedback. We're sorry that the episode didn't rise up to the level of nuance that you expected (and that the topic perhaps deserves). We have published vidoes with another guest who has a different perspective, perhaps including some of the details you hoped to here. When you have time, feel free to check out these two videos:
The Septuagint: th-cam.com/video/Qs_5Kz-5k3k/w-d-xo.html
The Apocrypha and the Early Church: th-cam.com/video/_n7oHBcWM7I/w-d-xo.html
@@AnabaptistPerspectives
Ok. That’s a very fair response. Thank you. Shalom in 2023
👍
Are any of you dudes think you are noble or wise or great as King James if you are let it be known right now? 1611 KJV bible.
Did I hear him say that he thinks maybe they did not included these books of God because they could make more bibles if they didn't .they ran it for about three hundred years and who got the message from God to take it out who with a pure heart revived these instructions.and another thing he said that part of it was the Jews just telling stories like a novel .so the Jews are telling fairly tails now not the word of god luckily we hsve people that can filter nonsence story time verses the word of god .search your hart admit is the first step you've been just hijacked of your wisdom .Ones wisdom is always measured by one's self truth....
Luther didn’t agree with half of the Bible. Jewish pray to the dead and the saints are praying for the living in the book of Revelation.