For my video on the canon: How the Bible came to be: Establishment of the Canon • Unlocking the Enigma: ... Apocrypha debate referenced: • The Great Debate IX: I...
Jewish scholars at the time of Josephus did NOT reject the Apocrypha, they - those who hadn't by then converted to Christianity - decided to reject the Septuagint as inspired, and the books and extra material in Daniel and Esther called the "Apocrypha" went with it. And the decision to reject the Septuagint was based in great part on that translation, in some key texts, being much more explicitly referential to Jesus as the Messiah than the parallel wording in the Hebrew. Of course, by the latter part of the first century AD, any decision about what "graphein" were inspired would have to have been made by the Church, not by whatever Jewish authorities were left who hadn't accepted Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the the prophecies.
Do you think that the Pharisees around the time of Josephus accepted the apocryphal books as scripture? Do you have some references for that? Blessings! Thanks
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews The "Apocrypha Apocalypse" YT channel is solely devoted to this topic. It covers the history, scholarship, citations etc. I believe it could give you a more complete view of this topic.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsThe Pharasees weren't the only Jews at the time of Jesus. There were many sects of Jews at that time--some of whom are totally lost to history !!!!!!!!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsThe traditional understanding is that the standard Hebrew Bible was what was set in the Ark at the beginning of the Second Temple Period. The Deuterocanon were still considered scriptural material(and claimed as much for themselves), and were treated as such. However they were not a covenantal book like the rest that were held in the temple. If you read Saint John of Damascus on Scripture, in his Exact Exposition you should be able to find this(and I’ve heard there are more reference for this). It’s also worth noting that he presents a different view of the Deuterocanon than either Protestants or Latin Catholics. Hope this helps!
Respectfully my brother I (Lutheran, not Roman) find these arguments personally unconvincing. Here are my contrasting thoughts below the first argument regarding the authority in Jeremiah and supposed lackthereof in Maccabees does not bode well for those who want to abandon the Dueterocanonicals while retaining Esther (which lacks any "Thus saiths) or even St. Paul, who himself writes in 1 Cor 7:12; "But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her." Regarding the second argument about the Jews. We know from the Holy Fathers (I.e., Justin Martyr claiming that they still had them in their synagogues) as well as from the existence of the LXX itself (composed by Jews for use by Jews), as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Essenes that these books were in use by many many Jews. We know also that there was disagreements among the various Jewish sects as to which books were biblical, i.e., the Sadducees having only the 5 books of Moses' Torah (and Samaritans for that Matter), and this is not also to mention the Patristic accusation that they ceased using the Deuterocanon after the advent of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, which is also compounded by the fact that they ceased using the LXX to make instead new and less Christian-friendly translation of the OT into Greek for the Hellenic Jews. - we see from all this that it is is not and could never be as simple as saying that the Jews didnt accept them. this argument only applies to the Rabbinic Jews (Masoretes) nearly 1000 years after Christ. That we would trust Josephus (one Jew in a world of many kinds of Jews who did not agree) over our own church fathers is something I could not do. The same argument in using Paul to me is not sufficient, that he says unto the Jews is the oracles of God, yes absolutely and we know this. Yet we know also that many Jews did not accept the Oracles of God, either in text or in substance. Yet even still, why should we ask the Jews who have rejected Christ and the NT what the oracles of God are, except in that we understand that it is from the Jews that the true Word of God made flesh has come , and spoken through His apostles, and the church in whom His Spirit dwells. The argument that the Apostles did not quote form the apocrypha is not true. While you clarify this somewhat in saying after this that they did not at least, in quoting form it or alluding to it (which they use more than several proto-canonical texts) do not say "thus saith the Lord" can be applied also to the times this is done with proto canonical texts, in which in many cases in the NT proto Canonical OT texts are quoted verbatim wihtout citation or "thus saiths" or are alluded to without. I.e., Matt 27:46, Matt 28:18, Matt 24:29, (both direct quotes and allusions) and this is only within a single book and only a few chapters very close together, and all form our Lords own mouth. Compare this with Jesus clear usage of the Deuterocan, in Matt 7:12 (Tobit 4:15), Matt 6:19-20 (Sir 29:11), and many more. Regarding the "Historical inaccuracies," again, the same arguments you make agains tthe Deuterocanonicals can and are (by atheists) made against the proto-canonicals. I.e., the alleged irreconcilable differences among the Holy Gospels, especially in the resurrection accounts, the supposed discrepancies between science and the geographical timeline, the alleged error regarding Quirinus and Herod, Ezek 26:14 saying that Tyre will never be rebuilt, etc etc. (None of which convince me of course). That you claim the Fathers did not accept the Apocrypha, even when qualified to say "the ones who knew the most about it," but the reality is that for those who thoroughly read the fathers there are only very select few who did not. What is happening is that prots read the holy fathers and see that they do not have a level canon (thus, dueterocanon) and assume that becuase they make this distinction that they reject these books entirely. Yet for both eastern and western (and oriental and Chaldean) fathers the Deuterocanon is everywhere in their writings. JUST AS IT IS in our Lutheran fathers writings. The reason that the church did not until trent hold a council (which is not true by the way as shown below) about this is because these texts were already in use globally in the west, in the east, in the orient, and among the Chaldees. Now again i must say also, this is not about Protestants vs Catholics. This is a certain kind of protestants vs the Lutherans and the Anglicans and the Romans and the Eastern orhtoox and the Oriental orthodox and the Church of the East. yet as said, it is not acutlaly even true, see for example, i.e, the council of Rome 382, Hippo 393, carthage 393 & 419, letter to toulouse 405, Apostolic Canons 400, or hte many many many individual fathers who state this, i..e, Pope Athanasius in Letter 39, John of Demascus in the expositon of the orthodox faith, Pope innocent the 1st in Letter 7, Aguustine in on the care for the dead and in Christian instruction, Justin Martyr in the dialogue with trypho, Irenaeus of Lyons in Against heresies, Clement of Alexendria in the insturctor and in Somata, Hippolytus agianst the Jews, Origen on first things, Cyprian of Carthage letter 61 and 80, in on the dress of virgins, and in on mortality, and in treatise 8, caius fragment 3, - to share only a few. And even Jerome dispelling the myth that he rejects these books in his letter to rufinus wherein he says “What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29-68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]). ) and, my brothers, this is only in direct clear statements that these books ARE SCIRPTURE, the USEAGE of these books beyond that, in dirct quotatiosn of their text and allusions to them, and sermons on them, ABOUND FAR BEYOND, all the way to the earliest patristic writings of the Didache, Polycarp, the epistle of Barnabas, Clement of Rome. Like - guys, come on. All this to say, I really don't think these arguments stand up without knocking the entire canon off the table
Hi, my friend! Thanks for your respectful and thoughtful interaction with my video. Just so I'm clear...I thought Lutherans did not put the Apocrypha on the same footing as Scripture. Am I mistaken about that? I'm nearly certain that Luther himself did not.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews God bless you. No that is not quite correct. We don't hold a level canon, and hold a distinction even within the proto canon, and so the Deuterocanon is one more layer of this. While there are in todays day and age North American Lutheran Synods that dont accept the Deuterocanon, and in fact North American Lutherans who don't even know that we have ever accepted the Deuterocanon (for a plethora of very interesting historical reasons which have been discussed by Lutherans eslewhere ) historically we did, AS deuterocanon, and had it in our lectionaries, in our Confessions, in our preaching, in our wriitngs, and in our bibles (which all Christians did until the late 1800s, whether they accepted them as Scripture or not). Luther did not accept them as Scripture, though he also did not accept parts of even the NT as scripture, so that is a glass house. If you're interested in speaking about this at length I would be glad to do so with you.
It should also be noted that Lutherans do not even have a closed Canon. so upon NOT having a level-canon, we don't even confess a canon, except in some synods as an extra confessional sub-standard document. Thus why Luther and several other Lutherans down the ages have rejected Proto-canonical texts. And even when they have not, have, from this lack of a level canon, not seen them as being on par with homolegomena, and even particular texts within that homolegomena. Nevertheless. Have a blessed Palm Sunday and a fruitful Holy Week
“Jean Driedo was a sixteenth century theologian and member of the faculty of the Catholic University at Louvain who condemned Luther’s teachings in 1519. He stated that the Apocryphal books were not considered part of the Old Testament canon. The Church used them for the purposes of edification but they did not carry the same authority as the canonical books, which alone were used for the confirmation of the doctrines of the faith.”
Wouldn't most of these also apply to Esther? It doesn't claim any authority for itself, some early Jews rejected it, it's never quoted in the New Testament, there are elements claimed as errors by modern historians.
@@Sam-fp8zm But it seems not to have been included by the Qumran community, or by the Mishnah. So if we're going back to Josephus as the sole authority, shouldn't we exclude the New Testament? Because he did.
Good point. Josephus did say about Jesus "he was the Christ" though which means he could of been Christian... I don't know either way. Josephus did seem to be speaking on behalf of all Judeans though when he spoke about the books they considered authoritative but maybe different sects had different books they held in high regard, and he was only speaking for the pharisees as he studied under them @@sthelenskungfu
Not sure about all books, but Wisdom ch. 2 is a clear prophecy of Christ. Early church leaders often quoted many of these books as scripture. Jewish scribes later rejected a number of books along with prophecies of Jesus as stated by Justin Martyr. Don't trust Christ rejecting Jews. Clement who may have known Paul used and quoted some of these books as scripture. Some are also in the Dead Sea Scrolls which is reason enough to reject the idea that these are not historically held by Jews. Let's be open to challenging traditions. Reformers, Augustine, Jerome, and Church counsels are no final authorities. Search the scriptures.
I became interested in the supposed prophecy of Christ in Wisdom a while back. However, after researching it I found one alternative explanation for the reputed prophecy that seems entirely plausible to me, which is that the author was very familiar with Isaiah and thus included his own passage about the Man of Sorrows. The fact that other portions of Wisdom have details that seem to not theologically cohere with the teachings of the accepted canon lead me to believe there is nothing inspired about it. It is an interesting read, though.
One of the Esdras books contains a strong messianic prophecy as does one of the non canonical books of Adam, and Eve. I'm not saying they should be canon but the prophecies IMO are clearly inspired. Also a prophecy in 2 Maccabees about the ark of the covenant came true first century AD in Revelation 11 (Revelation 1-12 happened 70 AD) when the heavens are opened, and the ark of the covenant can be seen. @@sorenpx
Hey, I’m quoting from Saint John of Damascus here, just to give you access to a different POV. This is from book IV Chapter XVII: “Observe, further(3), that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe(4), Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia(5), or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave(6), Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena(7) which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther(8). There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.”
Great work Stephen! It's quiet amazing when you consider how the apocrypha can impact how we understand scripture. Though it's not authoritative, it does give us some insight into what people believed during the time of Jesus.
Yeh Christians are the Jews/Jewish people/ Israel of God not the synagogue of satan. Replacement theology takes Jesus, and replaces him with satan which is satanic. @@donhaddix3770
Great video! We do well in reading these books. While not authoritative, they give us an understanding of the worldview of the second temple period. It is part of the context of the New Testament. I have also read the early church fathers for a similar reason. The latter are not part of the context of the New Testament era, but they give us the context of the early Christian church. We read books by contemporary Christian authors and they are no more authoritative than the early church fathers and the apocrypha.
I can say the flash point, the one that would eventually frame how I thought about this issue was was a survey on the "Interbiblical Period." I had to research Judith. Judith's reference to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon seemed to make no claim to historicity and to be something of satire and hyperbole (similar to the book of Jonah in places, and what I've thought), was combining historical personages (a la Daniel's Nebuchadnezzar), was treating Assyria as a name for the Babylonian Empire the way Herodotus did, or a combination of them. I read the book as positive, but not inspired, and that it had a lot to add. Her response was, "You'd be surprised how ignorant people in antiquity could be." This response came to frame how I read things going on. It is a hermeneutic principle I use to defend the Bible: *Never* assume ignorance as an explanation until other options are ruled out. I make a point of it in defending the Bible, and so did she. Yet, here she revoked her own principles. This permanently framed the discussion for me. We treated the Apocrypha with worse assumptions than we would the writings of Emperor Julian. For example, you juxtapose a point in I Maccabees, whose language the author modeled on earlier passages about the Babylonian Exile with Jeremiah and declare that the Apocrypha has no 'Thus saith the Lord.' If, however, I did the same thing in reverse and said, "The Hebrew Bible accepts alternate versions of biblical books like Esther, which doesn't even mention God. Contrast that with Baruch, who says "Thus saith the Lord" in 2.21. Their Bible clearly lacks inspiration," you would object that I'm not dealing with the issue in a charitable, or possibly even honest, spirit. Point of fact, the Apocrypha does have "thus saith the Lord." This sort of framing, when I don't have to dig far to find out the falsehood, pretty much soured my view of the Reformation's claim on Scripture. I don't believe that everyone who says such things (including you) is lying, but are repeating what they've heard. However, it is most certainly based on a lie somewhere down the line, and this seemed to be a theme: Claims against the Apocrypha generally turn out to be rooted in falsehoods or inconsistency. The fact that the Bible does quote apocryphal books turned the tables around. I Enoch is a formal quotation in Jude. Nobody really believes it should be added, and the hermeneutic hoops people jump through to argue it's a square circle amazed me. "Prophecy," all prophecy from the one God, is inspired by definition. Jesus alludes to it in his dispute with the Sadducees as Scripture. At the very least, I Enoch is solidly inspired outside the canon. Hebrews' uses of μαρτυρία as denoting formal quotation put II Maccabees and an otherwise lost work with Isaiah's death into that list. Then there are informal quotations, such as Jesus reference "if you do not forgive..." after Lord's Prayer in Matthew to Sir 28.2. Informal quotations used for authority were, and are, stronger evidence for me, because if you can informally quote something and expect your hearers to consider it authoritative and know what it is, it implies more familiarity than a formal quotation can while implying authority. There was no set canon at the time of Jesus, and he prophesied to the Jewish leaders that their kingdom of God, i.e. their authority, would be taken from them and given to another nation (Mt 21.43). He also said that all authority was given to him, and then he commissioned his disciples (Mt. 28.18-20). He gave them the power to bind and loose (Mt. 18.18), which seems to run parallel with his commission. The Jews subsequently anointed an antichrist, bar Kokhba, waged a three and a half year war, and were then driven permanently from their land. That generation was the one that did the heavy lifting to settle the Jewish Bible. If they had authority over the Christian Bible, then Christ is as much a false messiah as bar Kokhba, and their authority would also extend to the NT. If I recognize the Jewish authority, I could not get around feeling it entailed rejecting Christ. I don't get to cherry-pick the Bible or authority. If the Jews provided a ready-made authoritative list, and the Christians could not recognize what books were authoritative, then why should I believe the Spirit discerned them to recognize the NT? Failure there implies failure on the NT, and this, in its turn, challenges the entire Christian truth. The three-tiered lists do not indicate that the people didn't believe the books were inspired. In point of fact, we have good indication that they did believe they were. My favorite example is Athanasius and the Shepherd of Hermas. He said it was good to read. Hermas claimed to be a prophet, receiving divine revelation. If he was not under inspiration, then he uttered things in the name of the Lord that the Lord did not say. Athanasius could not call it "good" and "not inspired" under that principle, and I don't think we've any reason to believe he did or that he was ignorant of the passage. Almost every author on that list quoted something with verbiage that indicated inspiration, some of it from books not in Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Bibles. That many "exceptions" are not due to errors. They understood and meant something different by "inspiration" than modern authors do, and they did not limit this "inspiration" to books read in the churches. It seems to be only western Europe that had any such inkling develop. We can ask a Syrian (I have), "Is Revelation canonical?" "No." "Is it inspired?" "Yes." "Inspiration" is not codeterminate of "canonical," though it does work in reverse. Trent was not the first council where the books were called inspired by Catholics. That happened over a thousand years before in Carthage and, possibly, in Rome. We still have some of the canons. These books are recognized as inspired by every single Christian communion that is more than a half millennium old. Picking a teacher here and there to try and trace the history of the true canon, when they almost all disagree on canon, is just the canon version of the "Trail of Blood." The arrow of history works in the opposite. Even in Trent, inspiration was explicitly not limited to the books they ratified. Their Bible excluded I Esdras and the Apocalypse of Esdras, and the former was ratified in Carthage. If anything, people generally recognized more books as inspired than people are comfortable with today, and the Ethiopians probably weren't entirely unusual for how many books they utilized as we seem to think them today. There simply is no evidence of a closed canon in antiquity for Christians, even though we have evidence of people trying (and failing) to close it, like Jerome. Lastly, jettisoning the Apocrypha was really occasioned because it caused too much trouble on the debates over purgatory. If we aren't as legalistic as the medieval Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers were and don't reduce salvation to legalism, then it's really not much of an issue. Either way, rejecting a book on doctrinal grounds reverses the order of scriptural authority and the individual. I don't accept doctrine by fiat by popes, and I don't accept it from Luther. There's a warning to adding to and taking from Scripture, and doing it to win a debate crosses that line. It made the founding of the Reformation seem to me, to be the equivalent of King Henry founding the Anglican Church so he could remarry. There were several things that drove me from the Baptists, but most of them could land me into another Protestant communion. This is one of the few issues which made it seem impossible to remain Protestant, and the difficulty built over several years. The apologetic is built on demonstrable falsehoods, fiat declarations, and Trail of Blood type reasoning. If the Apocrypha is not Scripture, then I can know nothing about Christ, because I cannot trust the NT. In some arguments, I must condemn the NT to be consistent. I'm simply not willing to be inconsistent or go there.
I lean in the direction of the 39 Articles: "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." So in that sense, they're semi-canonical supplements to the canon.
I am sure if you were left behind after a nuclear war and you had to write a historical synopsis of the US, you would get all the historical facts right.
Reason one is wrong. The Book of Sirach’s author claims to be the most recent inspired writer of Wisdom literature: ”Now I am the last to keep vigil, like a gleaner following the grape-pickers; Since by the Lord’s blessing I have made progress till like a grape-picker I have filled my wine press. Consider that not for myself only have I labored, but for all who seek instruction. Listen to me, leaders of the people; rulers of the congregation, pay heed!“ Ben Sira 33:16-19 NABRE
Thanks for watching and interacting. You might be right in your reading of Ben Sira. I am not sure if he was putting himself on the same level as the OT canonical books (if you will allow the anachronistic language) or not. But I don’t get the same sense from 1 Maccabees. Blessings
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Blessings and Glory to Jesus Christ. We do not have Ben Sira's own direct claim of being on the same level as the other OT books, but his grandson (who translated the Greek version) claims in the Prologue to the Book of Sirach that his grandfather was "moved/drawn on" just like earlier canonical writers to write Wisdom literature when he says: "...my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was DRAWN ON ALSO himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom." Considering how the Book of Sirach begins with the statement: "All wisdom is from the LORD" and then he proceeds at length to give wisdom, this strongly suggests that Jesus Ben Sira is assuming his own work is from the LORD in SOME sense. But by the time you read Sirach Chapter 24, where God's Wisdom is speaking in the same voice of Lady Wisdom from Proverbs 8, it's hard to maintain that Jesus Ben Sira wasn't intending to write something that bore all the signs of "canonically inspired" Wisdom Scripture. It is also highly likely that John the Apostle borrowed from Sirach 24 when composing the opening of his Gospel in John 1:1 "In the Beginning was the WORD..." Proverbs 8 doesn't describe God's Wisdom as a WORD, but Sirach 24 speaks of God's Wisdom this way as part of God's SPEECH: "From the MOUTH of the LORD I came forth... from the Beginning before all ages he created me... Then the Creator of all gave me his command... ‘In Jacob make your dwelling." And similarly, John depicts the WORD of God "dwelling" (same Greek word "skenoo") among us, the way Sirach depicts God's Wisdom coming from God's Mouth and Dwelling in Jacob. If this is granted, it would suggest that John trusted the divine doctrine of the book so much that he would allude to it and borrow concepts from it to teach inspired doctrine about the Incarnation of Christ and His Divine Preexistence.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It's true 1st Maccabees speaks of the cessation of prophets and/or possibly prophecy in Israel (and it alludes to this in two other places as being contemporaneous with the events depicted). "There was great tribulation in Israel, the like of which had not been since the time prophets ceased to appear among them. (1 Macc. 9:27)" But this no more denies its own inspiration than the Book of Daniel when it says: "We have IN OUR DAY NO prince, PROPHET, or leader, no burnt offering, sacrifice, oblation, or incense, no place to offer first fruits, to find favor with you" (Daniel 3:38). The same holds for the Psalm 74:9, which does not deny its inspiration when it records cessation of prophecy in its own time with the words: "We do not see our signs; THERE IS NO LONGER ANY PROPHET, and there is none among us who knows HOW LONG." The Book of Lamentations also records another loss of prophecy in Lamentations 2:9 when it says: “Her [Jerusalem's] gates have sunk into the ground; he has ruined and broken her bars; her king and the princes are among the nations; there is no law any more, AND HER PROPHETS OBTAIN NO VISION FROM THE LORD.” Inspired Scripture, therefore, can speak about a time when there WAS lack of prophecy in hindsight. While 1st Maccabees is speaking of a loss of prophecy and prophets in the events it's speaking of, that doesn't inherently mean it is saying that its OWN text is NOT inspired. This is especially the case when we remember that Ketuvim (the Writings, referring generally to the later parts of the Jewish canon like Ecclesiastes) were already a category of Scripture that were set apart from the Torah and Nevi'im (the Prophets) by the fact that prophets did NOT necessarily have to write them in order to be considered inspired texts. They were written by Scribes or "wise men." It was common belief around the time of the Maccabees and the late 2nd Temple Period that these "sages" were able to write inspired Scripture EVEN THOUGH they did not hold the formal office/title of "prophet." We see this idea expressed in Jewish sources like b.Baba Bathra 12b which reads: “Said R. Abdimi of Haifa, “From the day on which the house of the sanctuary was destroyed, prophecy was taken away from prophets and given over to sages." So are sages not also prophets? This is the sense of the statement: "...even though it was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the sages." Said Amemar, [said] “And a sage is superior to a prophet: ‘And a prophet has a heart of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12)."
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Apologies, I forgot that verse, in particular, is part of the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel, which Protestants, following modern and post-Christian rabbinic Jews, do not accept as canonical, but which Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox receive as canonical following the ancient Christian reception. However, the other verses from Psalms and Lamentations are sufficient to make my point.
Theres over 100 quotations / references from the aprocypha in the new testament. Its the ONLY source of Hanukkah. No other books describe hannukah. Read them! Theyre awesome. Orthodox and coptic and catholices used them for 2000 years. Jesus used the Sepguait, including the apocryphal books. They were also included in the dead sea scrolls
I do think they are worth reading. And just to be clear, I did not claim that there aren’t allusions to them in the NT. What I did claim is that they are not cited as scripture. Blessings!
I think it’s also important to remember that discussion of the “canon” in terms of “authority” is a more Western view, and became a theological issue largely due to the Reformation. Luther even divided the NT into the homolegomena and antilegomena, so even parts of the NT were less authoritative in his view (although he shifted some during his life on this view, particularly in regards to James).
The apocrypha is in the canon- it is in the Septuagint- it's just that protestants have the wrong canon for the old testament. They ( I am one) use the masoretic text which ironically the masoretes that wrote it did not include the deuterocanon despite having a made up holiday called hannukah based on a myth version of maccabees. Here is a couple of things i found in 1 maccabees last night Micah 4 Everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid, for the Lord Almighty has spoken. 5 All the nations may walk in the name of their gods, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever. 1 Maccabees 14 8 Then did they till their ground in peace, and the earth gave her increase, and the trees of the field their fruit. 9 The ancient men sat all in the streets, com- muning together of good things, and the young men put on glorious and warlike apparel. 10 He provided victuals for the cities, and set in them all manner of munition, so that his hon- ourable name was renowned unto the end of the world. 11 He made peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy: 12 For every man sat under his vine and his fig tree, and there was none to fray them: 13 Neither was there any left in the land to fight against them: yea, the kings themselves were overthrown in those days 14 Moreover he strengthened all those of his people that were brought low: the law he searched out; and every contemner of the law and wicked person he took away. 15 He beautified the sanctuary, and multiplied vessels of the temple 1 Maccabees 2: 52 onwards has a list of OT people that had great faith just like in Hebrews 11 there is a list of such people.
2:31. Are you going to take accepting the Jewish rejection of the Apocrypha to its logical conclusion and likewise reject Jesus as the Christ for this decision wasn't formally and finally made until A.D. 90? If you don't, you're accepting only the facts and decisions you like!!!!!!!!! That opens one up to the charge of either blasphemy or hypocrisy.
I think it is part of a cumulative case. Jesus and the Pharisees seemed to me to share certain points of common ground. He didn’t seem to accuse them of having the wrong group of books but of not searching the ones they had and correctly applying them. That’s my read on it. Again, Joseph, thanks for taking the time to watch and interact. Nothing but goodwill from me! Blessings!
3:25 There are no inaccuracies in the Catholic Bible (aka “The Bible”). There is more than one “Nebuchadnezzar” in history. The one who rules the Assyrians is different than the one who ruled Babylon and conquered Jerusalem. For a more modern example, King George III of England and George Washington were leaders in two different countries (“across the pond”) with the same name. Names overlap for a variety of reasons. ❤
Maccabees contain fulfilled prophecies from at least four OT books, and has a couple of prophecies that came true first century AD as well. I'd recommend Christians read all the of the apocrypha, and all other non canonical books- OT pseudipigrapha, NT pseudipigrapha / apocrypha/ pre nicene writers, Josephus, Cassius Dio, OT archaeology from Babylon, Assyria, Persia, and any other old books that mention things in the bible.
@@donhaddix3770We said he recommend christians read, he didn't they were inspired or should be taken as such to teach inspired doctrine. Simply beneficial for christians to read as Martin Luther once said.
@Sam-fp8zm While it is possible for Bible scholars, using the most up-to-date archaeological knowledge, to defend the historical accuracy of the books of the Bible, it is not possible to argue for the historical accuracy of the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha. The books have demonstrable errors that cannot be reconciled. The evidence shows that eleven out of the fifteen books of the Old Testament Apocrypha, which includes the Septuagint plus, have either historical or theological errors. Therefore, we find the Old Testament Apocrypha with errors in theology, errors in history, and contradictions between the various books. Each of these three things disqualifies it as being part of God’s holy Word. 1. There Is No Objective Evidence of Divine Authority in the Apocrypha The books of the Old Testament Apocrypha do not contain anything like predictive prophecy, or the firsthand testimony of miracles, that would give evidence of their divine authority. If God divinely inspired these books, then we should expect to see some internal evidence confirming it. But there is none. There is no objective evidence of any type of divine authority in any of these books. 2. None of the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Claim Divine Authority From the documents themselves we find no claim of divine authority. There is not one instance in any of the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha where an author claims God’s authority is behind the things that are written. Nowhere do we find the author saying such things as, “Thus says the Lord,” or “the Word of the Lord came to.” Therefore, it is not logical to attribute God’s authority to the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha when they themselves make no claim to divine authority. In fact, we find statements in the Old Testament Apocrypha that seemingly rule themselves out as being divinely inspired. For example, we note the following admissions in Second Maccabees. First, the writer says that his work is merely a summary, or an abridgement of the work of Jason the Cyrene. It reads: All this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyrene in five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book. (2 Maccabees 2:23 NRSV) The writer admits that he is merely summarizing the work of another person. Not only is this writing an abridgement of the work of someone else, the author also laments about the quality of his job of summarization.
@aitornavarro6597 not inspired nor accurate but Christians should read. that is contradictory. we have the bible. we have history sources. he is pushing apocrypha as part of his bible, meaning spiritual books. part of his bible cannon and cited as part of scripture. that is contradictory. if bible, say it. if not, remove it.
@@donhaddix3770 I think it can be beneficial for christians to read for historical purposes and not spiritually beneficial. My bible has 66 books and that's it. Canon is closed.
The inter testimental books called the apocrypha have some strange ideas which aren’t consistent with the rest of the Bible however they are useful historical books to provide insight into what happened between OT & NT.
A poorly done and researched waste of my time. The presenter totally ignored Eastern Orthodoxy--a body until recently larger than Protestantism. Most certainly this was because Orthodox sources (as well as Monophosite churches--like the Coptic and Ethiopian churches) would undermine his position even more. The Ethiopian Bible has over 80 books in it (making it the biggest canon in Christendon), including, if I remember correctly, a fifth gospel. It is just now being translated into English. 😮
2:52 is an outright lie. Computer studies comparing the Greek texts of the New Testament and the Apocrypha have determined that Jesus referenced and/or quoted them 142 times and St. Paul over 600. One of the critical scholarly editions of the New Testament (I don't remember which onr) includes a complete list of every instance with both the references to the New Testament and the Apocrypha.
I think if you listen carefully to what I said, you may find that I said that they didn’t quote them “as scripture”. The Bible quotes many works that are non canonical, even secular works. I think if you knew me better, you might be less inclined to accuse me of lying even if you think I’m mistaken. We would probably be friends. Either way, I won’t delete any of your comments. And I genuinely appreciate you watching! Blessings!
If you look further at his work, I don’t think you’ll find it to be out of dishonesty, I’d agree that this video wasn’t well researched, but there’s no reason to paint it in such terms as “dishonest.”
@@ryrocks9487 thanks brother! Definitely feel free to post any corrections in the comments. I hope to come back to this subject again in the future. So your feedback will be helpful when I do a retake!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews No problem! I posted a quote and citation to Saint John of Damascus on the view of the Hebrew Scriptures which I hope you found. I think that might help with the issue of “canon.”
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It was suppose to be part of scripture. Just like the books of Enoch. they were considered devine. Give up on changing scripture rather learn what it has to say. Tell me about the 2300 year prophecy.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews So your not familar with the longest and most important prophecy? You must remember what I told you earlier that the SDA church having the spirit of prophecy and no other church has makes us as i asked also earlier we are the church Of Laodicea in prophecy and mush Jesus spoke about wasnt pleasant. yet we become the church of Philadelphia in latter days. All in all we too have been infiltrated with the world like all worldy churches. This should answer your question in a roundabout way.
Jewish scholars at the time of Josephus did NOT reject the Apocrypha, they - those who hadn't by then converted to Christianity - decided to reject the Septuagint as inspired, and the books and extra material in Daniel and Esther called the "Apocrypha" went with it. And the decision to reject the Septuagint was based in great part on that translation, in some key texts, being much more explicitly referential to Jesus as the Messiah than the parallel wording in the Hebrew. Of course, by the latter part of the first century AD, any decision about what "graphein" were inspired would have to have been made by the Church, not by whatever Jewish authorities were left who hadn't accepted Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the the prophecies.
Do you think that the Pharisees around the time of Josephus accepted the apocryphal books as scripture? Do you have some references for that? Blessings! Thanks
@BiblicalStudiesandReviews The "Apocrypha Apocalypse" YT channel is solely devoted to this topic. It covers the history, scholarship, citations etc. I believe it could give you a more complete view of this topic.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsThe Pharasees weren't the only Jews at the time of Jesus. There were many sects of Jews at that time--some of whom are totally lost to history !!!!!!!!
@@josephr.gainey2079 agreed
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsThe traditional understanding is that the standard Hebrew Bible was what was set in the Ark at the beginning of the Second Temple Period. The Deuterocanon were still considered scriptural material(and claimed as much for themselves), and were treated as such. However they were not a covenantal book like the rest that were held in the temple.
If you read Saint John of Damascus on Scripture, in his Exact Exposition you should be able to find this(and I’ve heard there are more reference for this). It’s also worth noting that he presents a different view of the Deuterocanon than either Protestants or Latin Catholics.
Hope this helps!
Respectfully my brother I (Lutheran, not Roman) find these arguments personally unconvincing. Here are my contrasting thoughts below
the first argument regarding the authority in Jeremiah and supposed lackthereof in Maccabees does not bode well for those who want to abandon the Dueterocanonicals while retaining Esther (which lacks any "Thus saiths) or even St. Paul, who himself writes in 1 Cor 7:12; "But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her."
Regarding the second argument about the Jews. We know from the Holy Fathers (I.e., Justin Martyr claiming that they still had them in their synagogues) as well as from the existence of the LXX itself (composed by Jews for use by Jews), as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Essenes that these books were in use by many many Jews. We know also that there was disagreements among the various Jewish sects as to which books were biblical, i.e., the Sadducees having only the 5 books of Moses' Torah (and Samaritans for that Matter), and this is not also to mention the Patristic accusation that they ceased using the Deuterocanon after the advent of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, which is also compounded by the fact that they ceased using the LXX to make instead new and less Christian-friendly translation of the OT into Greek for the Hellenic Jews. - we see from all this that it is is not and could never be as simple as saying that the Jews didnt accept them. this argument only applies to the Rabbinic Jews (Masoretes) nearly 1000 years after Christ. That we would trust Josephus (one Jew in a world of many kinds of Jews who did not agree) over our own church fathers is something I could not do. The same argument in using Paul to me is not sufficient, that he says unto the Jews is the oracles of God, yes absolutely and we know this. Yet we know also that many Jews did not accept the Oracles of God, either in text or in substance. Yet even still, why should we ask the Jews who have rejected Christ and the NT what the oracles of God are, except in that we understand that it is from the Jews that the true Word of God made flesh has come , and spoken through His apostles, and the church in whom His Spirit dwells.
The argument that the Apostles did not quote form the apocrypha is not true. While you clarify this somewhat in saying after this that they did not at least, in quoting form it or alluding to it (which they use more than several proto-canonical texts) do not say "thus saith the Lord" can be applied also to the times this is done with proto canonical texts, in which in many cases in the NT proto Canonical OT texts are quoted verbatim wihtout citation or "thus saiths" or are alluded to without. I.e., Matt 27:46, Matt 28:18, Matt 24:29, (both direct quotes and allusions) and this is only within a single book and only a few chapters very close together, and all form our Lords own mouth. Compare this with Jesus clear usage of the Deuterocan, in Matt 7:12 (Tobit 4:15), Matt 6:19-20 (Sir 29:11), and many more.
Regarding the "Historical inaccuracies," again, the same arguments you make agains tthe Deuterocanonicals can and are (by atheists) made against the proto-canonicals. I.e., the alleged irreconcilable differences among the Holy Gospels, especially in the resurrection accounts, the supposed discrepancies between science and the geographical timeline, the alleged error regarding Quirinus and Herod, Ezek 26:14 saying that Tyre will never be rebuilt, etc etc. (None of which convince me of course).
That you claim the Fathers did not accept the Apocrypha, even when qualified to say "the ones who knew the most about it," but the reality is that for those who thoroughly read the fathers there are only very select few who did not. What is happening is that prots read the holy fathers and see that they do not have a level canon (thus, dueterocanon) and assume that becuase they make this distinction that they reject these books entirely. Yet for both eastern and western (and oriental and Chaldean) fathers the Deuterocanon is everywhere in their writings. JUST AS IT IS in our Lutheran fathers writings. The reason that the church did not until trent hold a council (which is not true by the way as shown below) about this is because these texts were already in use globally in the west, in the east, in the orient, and among the Chaldees. Now again i must say also, this is not about Protestants vs Catholics. This is a certain kind of protestants vs the Lutherans and the Anglicans and the Romans and the Eastern orhtoox and the Oriental orthodox and the Church of the East.
yet as said, it is not acutlaly even true, see for example, i.e, the council of Rome 382, Hippo 393, carthage 393 & 419, letter to toulouse 405, Apostolic Canons 400, or hte many many many individual fathers who state this, i..e, Pope Athanasius in Letter 39, John of Demascus in the expositon of the orthodox faith, Pope innocent the 1st in Letter 7, Aguustine in on the care for the dead and in Christian instruction, Justin Martyr in the dialogue with trypho, Irenaeus of Lyons in Against heresies, Clement of Alexendria in the insturctor and in Somata, Hippolytus agianst the Jews, Origen on first things, Cyprian of Carthage letter 61 and 80, in on the dress of virgins, and in on mortality, and in treatise 8, caius fragment 3, - to share only a few. And even Jerome dispelling the myth that he rejects these books in his letter to rufinus wherein he says “What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29-68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]). )
and, my brothers, this is only in direct clear statements that these books ARE SCIRPTURE, the USEAGE of these books beyond that, in dirct quotatiosn of their text and allusions to them, and sermons on them, ABOUND FAR BEYOND, all the way to the earliest patristic writings of the Didache, Polycarp, the epistle of Barnabas, Clement of Rome. Like - guys, come on.
All this to say, I really don't think these arguments stand up without knocking the entire canon off the table
Hi, my friend! Thanks for your respectful and thoughtful interaction with my video. Just so I'm clear...I thought Lutherans did not put the Apocrypha on the same footing as Scripture. Am I mistaken about that? I'm nearly certain that Luther himself did not.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews God bless you. No that is not quite correct. We don't hold a level canon, and hold a distinction even within the proto canon, and so the Deuterocanon is one more layer of this. While there are in todays day and age North American Lutheran Synods that dont accept the Deuterocanon, and in fact North American Lutherans who don't even know that we have ever accepted the Deuterocanon (for a plethora of very interesting historical reasons which have been discussed by Lutherans eslewhere ) historically we did, AS deuterocanon, and had it in our lectionaries, in our Confessions, in our preaching, in our wriitngs, and in our bibles (which all Christians did until the late 1800s, whether they accepted them as Scripture or not). Luther did not accept them as Scripture, though he also did not accept parts of even the NT as scripture, so that is a glass house. If you're interested in speaking about this at length I would be glad to do so with you.
It should also be noted that Lutherans do not even have a closed Canon. so upon NOT having a level-canon, we don't even confess a canon, except in some synods as an extra confessional sub-standard document. Thus why Luther and several other Lutherans down the ages have rejected Proto-canonical texts. And even when they have not, have, from this lack of a level canon, not seen them as being on par with homolegomena, and even particular texts within that homolegomena. Nevertheless. Have a blessed Palm Sunday and a fruitful Holy Week
@@connorlongaphie you too! Blessings!
“Jean Driedo was a sixteenth century theologian and member of the faculty of the Catholic University at Louvain who condemned Luther’s teachings in 1519. He stated that the Apocryphal books were not considered part of the Old Testament canon. The Church used them for the purposes of edification but they did not carry the same authority as the canonical books, which alone were used for the confirmation of the doctrines of the faith.”
Wouldn't most of these also apply to Esther? It doesn't claim any authority for itself, some early Jews rejected it, it's never quoted in the New Testament, there are elements claimed as errors by modern historians.
Esther is included in Josephus list of the canon so I suppose that is the difference.
@@Sam-fp8zm But it seems not to have been included by the Qumran community, or by the Mishnah. So if we're going back to Josephus as the sole authority, shouldn't we exclude the New Testament? Because he did.
Good point. Josephus did say about Jesus "he was the Christ" though which means he could of been Christian... I don't know either way. Josephus did seem to be speaking on behalf of all Judeans though when he spoke about the books they considered authoritative but maybe different sects had different books they held in high regard, and he was only speaking for the pharisees as he studied under them
@@sthelenskungfu
Not sure about all books, but Wisdom ch. 2 is a clear prophecy of Christ. Early church leaders often quoted many of these books as scripture. Jewish scribes later rejected a number of books along with prophecies of Jesus as stated by Justin Martyr. Don't trust Christ rejecting Jews. Clement who may have known Paul used and quoted some of these books as scripture. Some are also in the Dead Sea Scrolls which is reason enough to reject the idea that these are not historically held by Jews. Let's be open to challenging traditions. Reformers, Augustine, Jerome, and Church counsels are no final authorities. Search the scriptures.
I became interested in the supposed prophecy of Christ in Wisdom a while back. However, after researching it I found one alternative explanation for the reputed prophecy that seems entirely plausible to me, which is that the author was very familiar with Isaiah and thus included his own passage about the Man of Sorrows. The fact that other portions of Wisdom have details that seem to not theologically cohere with the teachings of the accepted canon lead me to believe there is nothing inspired about it. It is an interesting read, though.
One of the Esdras books contains a strong messianic prophecy as does one of the non canonical books of Adam, and Eve. I'm not saying they should be canon but the prophecies IMO are clearly inspired. Also a prophecy in 2 Maccabees about the ark of the covenant came true first century AD in Revelation 11 (Revelation 1-12 happened 70 AD) when the heavens are opened, and the ark of the covenant can be seen.
@@sorenpx
St Augustine accepted the deuterocanon
@@christopherponsford8385 He did. And Jerome famously did not.
@@sorenpx Jerome translated them anyway and submitted to the authority of the Church
I believe the Greek Church also accepts these books.
Yes I regret I didn’t say that.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Greeks have more books in their canon.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews The Greek Orthodox Apocrypha differs slightly from the Roman Catholic Apocrypha.
Hey, I’m quoting from Saint John of Damascus here, just to give you access to a different POV. This is from book IV Chapter XVII:
“Observe, further(3), that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe(4), Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia(5), or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave(6), Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena(7) which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther(8). There
are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.”
Great work Stephen! It's quiet amazing when you consider how the apocrypha can impact how we understand scripture. Though it's not authoritative, it does give us some insight into what people believed during the time of Jesus.
the people God divorced.
@donhaddix3770 Replacement theology adherent detected.
@sorenpx
but remarries at 2nd coming.
church raptured 7 years before.
@@donhaddix3770 Which biblical passage are you using for the remarriage?
Yeh Christians are the Jews/Jewish people/ Israel of God not the synagogue of satan. Replacement theology takes Jesus, and replaces him with satan which is satanic. @@donhaddix3770
I like your channel. However, several things in this video are inaccurate. (I'm Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.)
Feel free to comment on anything I blundered.
Great video! We do well in reading these books. While not authoritative, they give us an understanding of the worldview of the second temple period. It is part of the context of the New Testament. I have also read the early church fathers for a similar reason. The latter are not part of the context of the New Testament era, but they give us the context of the early Christian church. We read books by contemporary Christian authors and they are no more authoritative than the early church fathers and the apocrypha.
Agreed!
I can say the flash point, the one that would eventually frame how I thought about this issue was was a survey on the "Interbiblical Period." I had to research Judith. Judith's reference to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon seemed to make no claim to historicity and to be something of satire and hyperbole (similar to the book of Jonah in places, and what I've thought), was combining historical personages (a la Daniel's Nebuchadnezzar), was treating Assyria as a name for the Babylonian Empire the way Herodotus did, or a combination of them. I read the book as positive, but not inspired, and that it had a lot to add. Her response was, "You'd be surprised how ignorant people in antiquity could be."
This response came to frame how I read things going on. It is a hermeneutic principle I use to defend the Bible: *Never* assume ignorance as an explanation until other options are ruled out. I make a point of it in defending the Bible, and so did she. Yet, here she revoked her own principles. This permanently framed the discussion for me. We treated the Apocrypha with worse assumptions than we would the writings of Emperor Julian. For example, you juxtapose a point in I Maccabees, whose language the author modeled on earlier passages about the Babylonian Exile with Jeremiah and declare that the Apocrypha has no 'Thus saith the Lord.' If, however, I did the same thing in reverse and said, "The Hebrew Bible accepts alternate versions of biblical books like Esther, which doesn't even mention God. Contrast that with Baruch, who says "Thus saith the Lord" in 2.21. Their Bible clearly lacks inspiration," you would object that I'm not dealing with the issue in a charitable, or possibly even honest, spirit. Point of fact, the Apocrypha does have "thus saith the Lord." This sort of framing, when I don't have to dig far to find out the falsehood, pretty much soured my view of the Reformation's claim on Scripture. I don't believe that everyone who says such things (including you) is lying, but are repeating what they've heard. However, it is most certainly based on a lie somewhere down the line, and this seemed to be a theme: Claims against the Apocrypha generally turn out to be rooted in falsehoods or inconsistency.
The fact that the Bible does quote apocryphal books turned the tables around. I Enoch is a formal quotation in Jude. Nobody really believes it should be added, and the hermeneutic hoops people jump through to argue it's a square circle amazed me. "Prophecy," all prophecy from the one God, is inspired by definition. Jesus alludes to it in his dispute with the Sadducees as Scripture. At the very least, I Enoch is solidly inspired outside the canon. Hebrews' uses of μαρτυρία as denoting formal quotation put II Maccabees and an otherwise lost work with Isaiah's death into that list. Then there are informal quotations, such as Jesus reference "if you do not forgive..." after Lord's Prayer in Matthew to Sir 28.2. Informal quotations used for authority were, and are, stronger evidence for me, because if you can informally quote something and expect your hearers to consider it authoritative and know what it is, it implies more familiarity than a formal quotation can while implying authority.
There was no set canon at the time of Jesus, and he prophesied to the Jewish leaders that their kingdom of God, i.e. their authority, would be taken from them and given to another nation (Mt 21.43). He also said that all authority was given to him, and then he commissioned his disciples (Mt. 28.18-20). He gave them the power to bind and loose (Mt. 18.18), which seems to run parallel with his commission. The Jews subsequently anointed an antichrist, bar Kokhba, waged a three and a half year war, and were then driven permanently from their land. That generation was the one that did the heavy lifting to settle the Jewish Bible. If they had authority over the Christian Bible, then Christ is as much a false messiah as bar Kokhba, and their authority would also extend to the NT. If I recognize the Jewish authority, I could not get around feeling it entailed rejecting Christ. I don't get to cherry-pick the Bible or authority.
If the Jews provided a ready-made authoritative list, and the Christians could not recognize what books were authoritative, then why should I believe the Spirit discerned them to recognize the NT? Failure there implies failure on the NT, and this, in its turn, challenges the entire Christian truth.
The three-tiered lists do not indicate that the people didn't believe the books were inspired. In point of fact, we have good indication that they did believe they were. My favorite example is Athanasius and the Shepherd of Hermas. He said it was good to read. Hermas claimed to be a prophet, receiving divine revelation. If he was not under inspiration, then he uttered things in the name of the Lord that the Lord did not say. Athanasius could not call it "good" and "not inspired" under that principle, and I don't think we've any reason to believe he did or that he was ignorant of the passage. Almost every author on that list quoted something with verbiage that indicated inspiration, some of it from books not in Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Bibles. That many "exceptions" are not due to errors. They understood and meant something different by "inspiration" than modern authors do, and they did not limit this "inspiration" to books read in the churches. It seems to be only western Europe that had any such inkling develop. We can ask a Syrian (I have), "Is Revelation canonical?" "No." "Is it inspired?" "Yes." "Inspiration" is not codeterminate of "canonical," though it does work in reverse.
Trent was not the first council where the books were called inspired by Catholics. That happened over a thousand years before in Carthage and, possibly, in Rome. We still have some of the canons. These books are recognized as inspired by every single Christian communion that is more than a half millennium old. Picking a teacher here and there to try and trace the history of the true canon, when they almost all disagree on canon, is just the canon version of the "Trail of Blood." The arrow of history works in the opposite. Even in Trent, inspiration was explicitly not limited to the books they ratified. Their Bible excluded I Esdras and the Apocalypse of Esdras, and the former was ratified in Carthage. If anything, people generally recognized more books as inspired than people are comfortable with today, and the Ethiopians probably weren't entirely unusual for how many books they utilized as we seem to think them today. There simply is no evidence of a closed canon in antiquity for Christians, even though we have evidence of people trying (and failing) to close it, like Jerome.
Lastly, jettisoning the Apocrypha was really occasioned because it caused too much trouble on the debates over purgatory. If we aren't as legalistic as the medieval Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers were and don't reduce salvation to legalism, then it's really not much of an issue. Either way, rejecting a book on doctrinal grounds reverses the order of scriptural authority and the individual. I don't accept doctrine by fiat by popes, and I don't accept it from Luther. There's a warning to adding to and taking from Scripture, and doing it to win a debate crosses that line. It made the founding of the Reformation seem to me, to be the equivalent of King Henry founding the Anglican Church so he could remarry.
There were several things that drove me from the Baptists, but most of them could land me into another Protestant communion. This is one of the few issues which made it seem impossible to remain Protestant, and the difficulty built over several years. The apologetic is built on demonstrable falsehoods, fiat declarations, and Trail of Blood type reasoning. If the Apocrypha is not Scripture, then I can know nothing about Christ, because I cannot trust the NT. In some arguments, I must condemn the NT to be consistent. I'm simply not willing to be inconsistent or go there.
Thanks for watching and engaging! I always appreciate these kind of comments that disagree with an irenic tone. Blessings!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviewsGlad it didn't come off too aggressive, given what the content was. I hope things go well for you.
The Roman Catholic Church uses the term "deuterocanon" or 2nd canon for these books.
I lean in the direction of the 39 Articles: "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." So in that sense, they're semi-canonical supplements to the canon.
I am sure if you were left behind after a nuclear war and you had to write a historical synopsis of the US, you would get all the historical facts right.
I’m 100% certain that I would not.
Reason one is wrong. The Book of Sirach’s author claims to be the most recent inspired writer of Wisdom literature:
”Now I am the last to keep vigil, like a gleaner following the grape-pickers; Since by the Lord’s blessing I have made progress till like a grape-picker I have filled my wine press. Consider that not for myself only have I labored, but for all who seek instruction. Listen to me, leaders of the people; rulers of the congregation, pay heed!“
Ben Sira 33:16-19 NABRE
Thanks for watching and interacting. You might be right in your reading of Ben Sira. I am not sure if he was putting himself on the same level as the OT canonical books (if you will allow the anachronistic language) or not. But I don’t get the same sense from 1 Maccabees. Blessings
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Blessings and Glory to Jesus Christ. We do not have Ben Sira's own direct claim of being on the same level as the other OT books, but his grandson (who translated the Greek version) claims in the Prologue to the Book of Sirach that his grandfather was "moved/drawn on" just like earlier canonical writers to write Wisdom literature when he says: "...my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was DRAWN ON ALSO himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom."
Considering how the Book of Sirach begins with the statement: "All wisdom is from the LORD" and then he proceeds at length to give wisdom, this strongly suggests that Jesus Ben Sira is assuming his own work is from the LORD in SOME sense. But by the time you read Sirach Chapter 24, where God's Wisdom is speaking in the same voice of Lady Wisdom from Proverbs 8, it's hard to maintain that Jesus Ben Sira wasn't intending to write something that bore all the signs of "canonically inspired" Wisdom Scripture.
It is also highly likely that John the Apostle borrowed from Sirach 24 when composing the opening of his Gospel in John 1:1 "In the Beginning was the WORD..." Proverbs 8 doesn't describe God's Wisdom as a WORD, but Sirach 24 speaks of God's Wisdom this way as part of God's SPEECH: "From the MOUTH of the LORD I came forth... from the Beginning before all ages he created me... Then the Creator of all gave me his command... ‘In Jacob make your dwelling."
And similarly, John depicts the WORD of God "dwelling" (same Greek word "skenoo") among us, the way Sirach depicts God's Wisdom coming from God's Mouth and Dwelling in Jacob. If this is granted, it would suggest that John trusted the divine doctrine of the book so much that he would allude to it and borrow concepts from it to teach inspired doctrine about the Incarnation of Christ and His Divine Preexistence.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It's true 1st Maccabees speaks of the cessation of prophets and/or possibly prophecy in Israel (and it alludes to this in two other places as being contemporaneous with the events depicted). "There was great tribulation in Israel, the like of which had not been since the time prophets ceased to appear among them. (1 Macc. 9:27)"
But this no more denies its own inspiration than the Book of Daniel when it says: "We have IN OUR DAY NO prince, PROPHET, or leader, no burnt offering, sacrifice, oblation, or incense, no place to offer first fruits, to find favor with you" (Daniel 3:38).
The same holds for the Psalm 74:9, which does not deny its inspiration when it records cessation of prophecy in its own time with the words:
"We do not see our signs; THERE IS NO LONGER ANY PROPHET, and there is none among us who knows HOW LONG."
The Book of Lamentations also records another loss of prophecy in Lamentations 2:9 when it says: “Her [Jerusalem's] gates have sunk into the ground; he has ruined and broken her bars; her king and the princes are among the nations; there is no law any more, AND HER PROPHETS OBTAIN NO VISION FROM THE LORD.”
Inspired Scripture, therefore, can speak about a time when there WAS lack of prophecy in hindsight. While 1st Maccabees is speaking of a loss of prophecy and prophets in the events it's speaking of, that doesn't inherently mean it is saying that its OWN text is NOT inspired. This is especially the case when we remember that Ketuvim (the Writings, referring generally to the later parts of the Jewish canon like Ecclesiastes) were already a category of Scripture that were set apart from the Torah and Nevi'im (the Prophets) by the fact that prophets did NOT necessarily have to write them in order to be considered inspired texts. They were written by Scribes or "wise men." It was common belief around the time of the Maccabees and the late 2nd Temple Period that these "sages" were able to write inspired Scripture EVEN THOUGH they did not hold the formal office/title of "prophet."
We see this idea expressed in Jewish sources like b.Baba Bathra 12b which reads: “Said R. Abdimi of Haifa, “From the day on which the house of the sanctuary was destroyed, prophecy was taken away from prophets and given over to sages." So are sages not also prophets? This is the sense of the statement: "...even though it was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the sages." Said Amemar, [said] “And a sage is superior to a prophet: ‘And a prophet has a heart of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12)."
@@Nicodermus4Life I don’t have a Daniel 3:38 in my Bible.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Apologies, I forgot that verse, in particular, is part of the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel, which Protestants, following modern and post-Christian rabbinic Jews, do not accept as canonical, but which Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox receive as canonical following the ancient Christian reception. However, the other verses from Psalms and Lamentations are sufficient to make my point.
Stephen you handled the comments in a christlike manner. Thank you
Thank you!
Theres over 100 quotations / references from the aprocypha in the new testament.
Its the ONLY source of Hanukkah. No other books describe hannukah.
Read them! Theyre awesome.
Orthodox and coptic and catholices used them for 2000 years.
Jesus used the Sepguait, including the apocryphal books.
They were also included in the dead sea scrolls
I do think they are worth reading. And just to be clear, I did not claim that there aren’t allusions to them in the NT. What I did claim is that they are not cited as scripture. Blessings!
I think it’s also important to remember that discussion of the “canon” in terms of “authority” is a more Western view, and became a theological issue largely due to the Reformation. Luther even divided the NT into the homolegomena and antilegomena, so even parts of the NT were less authoritative in his view (although he shifted some during his life on this view, particularly in regards to James).
When I was editing this, I thought, “I wish I had said something about the Orthodox view”. Thanks for watch in spite of this! Appreciate you, brother.
The apocrypha is in the canon- it is in the Septuagint- it's just that protestants have the wrong canon for the old testament. They ( I am one) use the masoretic text which ironically the masoretes that wrote it did not include the deuterocanon despite having a made up holiday called hannukah based on a myth version of maccabees. Here is a couple of things i found in 1 maccabees last night
Micah 4
Everyone will sit under their own vine
and under their own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,
for the Lord Almighty has spoken.
5 All the nations may walk
in the name of their gods,
but we will walk in the name of the Lord
our God for ever and ever.
1 Maccabees 14
8 Then did they till their ground in peace, and
the earth gave her increase, and the trees of the
field their fruit.
9 The ancient men sat all in the streets, com-
muning together of good things, and the young
men put on glorious and warlike apparel.
10 He provided victuals for the cities, and set
in them all manner of munition, so that his hon-
ourable name was renowned unto the end of the
world.
11 He made peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced
with great joy:
12 For every man sat under his vine and his fig
tree, and there was none to fray them:
13 Neither was there any left in the land to fight
against them: yea, the kings themselves were
overthrown in those days
14 Moreover he strengthened all those of
his people that were brought low: the law he
searched out; and every contemner of the law
and wicked person he took away.
15 He beautified the sanctuary, and multiplied
vessels of the temple
1 Maccabees 2: 52 onwards has a list of OT people that had great faith just like in Hebrews 11 there is a list of such people.
2:31. Are you going to take accepting the Jewish rejection of the Apocrypha to its logical conclusion and likewise reject Jesus as the Christ for this decision wasn't formally and finally made until A.D. 90? If you don't, you're accepting only the facts and decisions you like!!!!!!!!! That opens one up to the charge of either blasphemy or hypocrisy.
I think it is part of a cumulative case. Jesus and the Pharisees seemed to me to share certain points of common ground. He didn’t seem to accuse them of having the wrong group of books but of not searching the ones they had and correctly applying them. That’s my read on it. Again, Joseph, thanks for taking the time to watch and interact. Nothing but goodwill from me! Blessings!
3:25 There are no inaccuracies in the Catholic Bible (aka “The Bible”). There is more than one “Nebuchadnezzar” in history. The one who rules the Assyrians is different than the one who ruled Babylon and conquered Jerusalem. For a more modern example, King George III of England and George Washington were leaders in two different countries (“across the pond”) with the same name. Names overlap for a variety of reasons. ❤
Do you have any historical references for a Nebuchadnezzar that ruled over Assyria at that time?
Maccabees contain fulfilled prophecies from at least four OT books, and has a couple of prophecies that came true first century AD as well. I'd recommend Christians read all the of the apocrypha, and all other non canonical books- OT pseudipigrapha, NT pseudipigrapha / apocrypha/ pre nicene writers, Josephus, Cassius Dio, OT archaeology from Babylon, Assyria, Persia, and any other old books that mention things in the bible.
nonsense.
@@donhaddix3770We said he recommend christians read, he didn't they were inspired or should be taken as such to teach inspired doctrine. Simply beneficial for christians to read as Martin Luther once said.
@Sam-fp8zm
While it is possible for Bible scholars, using the most up-to-date archaeological knowledge, to defend the historical accuracy of the books of the Bible, it is not possible to argue for the historical accuracy of the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha. The books have demonstrable errors that cannot be reconciled.
The evidence shows that eleven out of the fifteen books of the Old Testament Apocrypha, which includes the Septuagint plus, have either historical or theological errors. Therefore, we find the Old Testament Apocrypha with errors in theology, errors in history, and contradictions between the various books.
Each of these three things disqualifies it as being part of God’s holy Word.
1. There Is No Objective Evidence of Divine Authority in the Apocrypha
The books of the Old Testament Apocrypha do not contain anything like predictive prophecy, or the firsthand testimony of miracles, that would give evidence of their divine authority. If God divinely inspired these books, then we should expect to see some internal evidence confirming it. But there is none. There is no objective evidence of any type of divine authority in any of these books.
2. None of the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Claim Divine Authority
From the documents themselves we find no claim of divine authority. There is not one instance in any of the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha where an author claims God’s authority is behind the things that are written. Nowhere do we find the author saying such things as, “Thus says the Lord,” or “the Word of the Lord came to.” Therefore, it is not logical to attribute God’s authority to the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha when they themselves make no claim to divine authority. In fact, we find statements in the Old Testament Apocrypha that seemingly rule themselves out as being divinely inspired.
For example, we note the following admissions in Second Maccabees. First, the writer says that his work is merely a summary, or an abridgement of the work of Jason the Cyrene. It reads:
All this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyrene in five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book. (2 Maccabees 2:23 NRSV)
The writer admits that he is merely summarizing the work of another person.
Not only is this writing an abridgement of the work of someone else, the author also laments about the quality of his job of summarization.
@aitornavarro6597
not inspired nor accurate but Christians should read. that is contradictory. we have the bible. we have history sources.
he is pushing apocrypha as part of his bible, meaning spiritual books. part of his bible cannon and cited as part of scripture.
that is contradictory. if bible, say it. if not, remove it.
@@donhaddix3770 I think it can be beneficial for christians to read for historical purposes and not spiritually beneficial. My bible has 66 books and that's it. Canon is closed.
QTWTAIN, as they say.
I had to look that up 😂
yes, important reading there. just sayin.
The inter testimental books called the apocrypha have some strange ideas which aren’t consistent with the rest of the Bible however they are useful historical books to provide insight into what happened between OT & NT.
Are the Catholics right? Yes. ❤
Thanks for popping in!
A poorly done and researched waste of my time. The presenter totally ignored Eastern Orthodoxy--a body until recently larger than Protestantism. Most certainly this was because Orthodox sources (as well as Monophosite churches--like the Coptic and Ethiopian churches) would undermine his position even more. The Ethiopian Bible has over 80 books in it (making it the biggest canon in Christendon), including, if I remember correctly, a fifth gospel. It is just now being translated into English.
😮
I think it was a mistake not to mention Eastern Orthodox. I agree with you there.
2:52 is an outright lie. Computer studies comparing the Greek texts of the New Testament and the Apocrypha have determined that Jesus referenced and/or quoted them 142 times and St. Paul over 600. One of the critical scholarly editions of the New Testament (I don't remember which onr) includes a complete list of every instance with both the references to the New Testament and the Apocrypha.
I think if you listen carefully to what I said, you may find that I said that they didn’t quote them “as scripture”. The Bible quotes many works that are non canonical, even secular works. I think if you knew me better, you might be less inclined to accuse me of lying even if you think I’m mistaken. We would probably be friends. Either way, I won’t delete any of your comments. And I genuinely appreciate you watching! Blessings!
If you look further at his work, I don’t think you’ll find it to be out of dishonesty, I’d agree that this video wasn’t well researched, but there’s no reason to paint it in such terms as “dishonest.”
@@ryrocks9487 thanks brother! Definitely feel free to post any corrections in the comments. I hope to come back to this subject again in the future. So your feedback will be helpful when I do a retake!
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews No problem! I posted a quote and citation to Saint John of Damascus on the view of the Hebrew Scriptures which I hope you found. I think that might help with the issue of “canon.”
@@ryrocks9487 just curious would you happen to be Eastern Orthodox ?
This man does the devils work not Gods.
Do you accept the apocrypha as scripture?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It was suppose to be part of scripture. Just like the books of Enoch. they were considered devine. Give up on changing scripture rather learn what it has to say. Tell me about the 2300 year prophecy.
@@jimmytiler5522 that’s interesting. Is that a standard Seventh Day Adventist position? Genuine question on my part.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews So your not familar with the longest and most important prophecy? You must remember what I told you earlier that the SDA church having the spirit of prophecy and no other church has makes us as i asked also earlier we are the church Of Laodicea in prophecy and mush Jesus spoke about wasnt pleasant. yet we become the church of Philadelphia in latter days. All in all we too have been infiltrated with the world like all worldy churches. This should answer your question in a roundabout way.