Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | All scripture or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 4278 | ||
Answer: Why the Apocrypha is not part of the Protestant Bible. Not an easy question to answer in a short e-mail. But there are several main reasons. First, the Jewish canon does not include the Apocrypha. This is significant as it was to the Jews that the OT was entrusted (Rom 3:1,2). Second, some of the Apocrypha books were written in Greek, not Hebrew. So they are distinguished from the Hebrew Scriptures. This would relate back to point one. Third, Jesus seems to exclude the Apocrypha in his statement in Luke 11:51 - "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation" (NKJV). The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew canon. The death of Zechariah is included in 2Chronicles, the last book in the Hebrew canon (the order of books is different from the order they are in today). So this seems to confirm the Jewish canon as being the correct one. The order of books as they appear today is taken from the Septuagint (second century BC Greek translation of the OT), which included the Apocrypha. But Jesus is following the Hebrew canon in His statement. Fourth, no direct quotations from any Apocryphal books appear in the NT. Now there are allusions to Apocryphal events and statements, such as 1Maccabees being alluded to in Hebrews 11:37. But none of these allusions rise to the apostles using the Apocrypha as an authoritative source. In other words, there are no Apocrypha quotes in the NT introduced in a way which shows the apostles considered the books to be authoritative, i.e. by using: "It has been written," "spoken by the prophet," "the Holy Spirit spoke," etc. So with the lack of authoritative quotes from the Apocrypha in the NT, it appears the NT writers, and Jesus Himself, did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. Now, not every book of the Hebrew canon is quoted in the NT (such as the Song of Solomon, or Canticles as it is named in Catholic Bibles). But every section of the OT as Jews divided it is quoted from (i.e. the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings). The absence of any quotes from any of the Apocryphal books is rather striking. This is especially so given that many of the OT quotes in the NT were actually taken from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew text (It is for this reason that if you compare OT quotes in the NT with their OT counterparts they don't match up exactly). In any case, what this means is, the Bible text the NT authors had before them had the Apocrypha in it; but they seem to have completely ignored the Apocrypha when they were looking to support a statement with an authoritative source. So the evidence of the NT strongly suggests the writers of the NT did not accept the Apocryphal books as canon. Moreover, the Catholic church itself did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in the 1500's. Before that, there was always debate as to their inspiration. Some of the Church Fathers, for instance, quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture but others didn't. But Augustine (c. 400 AD) did accept the Apocrypha. So it was mainly from his influence that the Apocrypha eventually became accepted. But however it is looked at, the official acceptance of the Apocrypha occurred well after the NT was written and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews. To sum up, Jews, apparently the NT writers and Jesus, some Church Fathers, and Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha. While, some Church Fathers and the Catholic church accept it. To me, and Protestants in general, all of this is strong evidence against the inclusion of the Apocrypha. I hope the above helps. (quoted from www.dtl.org/e-mails/catholicism/apocrypha.htm) |
||||||
2 | When was Revelation accepted? | Bible general Archive 1 | wist ye not | 9671 | ||
When was the book of Revelation officialy accepted into the canon of the New Testament? | ||||||
3 | When was Revelation accepted? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9690 | ||
Greetings Wist Ye Not! The history of the acceptance of the Canoncity of Revelation is an interesting story. There was almost complete acceptance of it by the Early Church Fathers and the Western Church. However, in the Eastern Church, in the 3rd century there was a rising oposition to the belief in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ, so the Eastern Church was slow to accept Revelation as canonical. It was not included in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus the Gnositc. The Council of Laodicea (about 360 a.d.) omitted it from their canonical list. However, the third Council of Carthage (397 a.d.) included it. Consider the following quote: "Those accepting John the Apostle as the author universally recognize the divine inspiration of Revelation and its rightful place in the Bible. Because its style differs from that of other New Testament books, acceptance of Revelation by early Christians was delayed by a rising opposition to premillennialism. The doctrine of the literal 1,000-year reign of Christ was rejected by some church leaders in the third and fourth centuries. The evidence, however, shows that orthodox theologians readily accepted the book as genuinely inspired. Early fathers who recognized the book as Scripture include Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Apollonius, and Theophilus, the bishop of Antioch. By the beginning of the third century the book was widely quoted as Scripture. The fact that the Book of Revelation complements other inspired Scripture such as the Book of Daniel has confirmed its divine inspiration." - The Bible Knowledge Commentary. So, the answer to your question is that most accepted the canoncity of Revelation right from the beginning. However, it was not until 397 a.d. that the Eastern Church accepted it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||