Bible Question:
Hi, Tim, Kalos, Doc, EdB, the thread I prepared this study for has been restricted. I don’t know why, so I’m placing it here so it won’t go to waste. My question comes at the end. I thank Kalos for his excellent link to “The OT Testament Apocrypha Controversy”, by Don Closson. Tim You make 4 strong arguments (id #143427) against including the Apocryphal books in the “Inspired” OT canon. 1-2) I don’t think a “lack of agreement” among those few early LXX manuscripts impugns their inspired status any more than it does our current “Protestant” canon which, after all, derives from myriad extant and often dissimilar manuscripts. 3) Yes, Paul’s citations of these books can’t automatically make Scripture of them. By the same token, however, Paul’s non-citation of others can’t automatically render those “mere works of man”. In other words, NT Apostolic quotation doesn’t equal inspiration, or lack thereof. 4) That the early church fathers disagreed on canonicity may not be so decisive since Jerome himself ultimately acceded to the Catholic Church’s authority in the matter and even defended them as inspired (“Against Rufinas” 11:33; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2710.htm). How do we judge the inspired status of these books? What settles the question for me is that Jesus Himself made reference to the Apocrypha in a typological (i.e. pointing to Himself) way. One reference in particular should suffice. Jesus and His Apostles observed Hanukkah (John 10:22-36), which is recorded as divinely established only in 1 and 2 Maccabees and never mentioned in any other OT book. On the day of the Feast, Jesus says: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken-- do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'”? (Joh 10:34-36 ESV). Jesus while standing near the Temple during the Feast of Hanukkah speaks of his being “consecrated” (“separated from a common to a sacred use” Websters), just as Judas Maccabeus “consecrated” the Temple 1 Macc 4:36-59 and 2 Macc 10:1-8. Jesus made a deliberate and direct connection in the minds of his Jewish hearers with the Feast and the account of it in the “apocryphal” Maccabees 1-2 as a foreshadowing or “type” of His own consecration by the Father. Just as Jesus taught His disciples to read the OT typologically (John 5:39) in the Manna (Joh 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4); the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Num 21:4-9), and in Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Gen 28:12), here He clearly accords the same status of divine inspiration of these other accounts to this Self-reference in the Books of Maccabees. Christ does not distinguish these 2 “apocryphal” books from any other inspired book of the OT nor, apparently, did His Apostles. These books appear to be canon-worthy. Some observations from my studies. 1) Protestant scholarship suffers from suspicion of anything Catholic. This is a terrible fault on our part as Protestants as I’m increasingly finding the Catholic Church, though freaky at times, to be an immense, supernatural, exegetical resource. We all could open our tidy little minds a bit in this regard. 2) Very, very few, both Catholic and Protestant, seem to know any Church history at all. For example, did you know we nearly lost James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation to Martin Luther’s redaction of the NT? I’ve heard, but haven’t found the primary source, that only an “accident of history” saved these books, which begs my closing question: How were these NT books saved from the Apocalypse of Apocrypha? Colin |
Bible Answer: Colin I for the most part agree with your last paragraph. On point one: In the minds of many if it even hints of Catholicism it has to be wrong. This is causing many to miss the age-old truths. I wish we would learn to do critical thinking instead of prejudicial thinking. On Point 2: Your absolutely right. Most that think they know church history are really basing their knowledge on information taught with prejudice. For the Protestant the Catholics were so wrong that if something wasn't done the only person in heaven would be those that dropped out of the Catholic church. The Catholics look at the Protestants through the same prejudices. Very very few have studied writers from both sides of the issue to get a complete understanding of what went on. I know that in my training I was taught to see the Reformation light as painted exclusively by Protestant writers. It wasn’t until I was challenged to read the Catholic perspective written by Catholic writers that I understood their side. I now see the Reformation in a completely different light it wasn’t as cut and dried as either side tries to make it. I have also learned we have put many words into the mouths of the Reformers/Catholics that they wouldn’t have thought of uttering. In fact much what we contribute to the men of this age, would horrify those same men if it had been presented to them. We have laid charges at the feet of both side deeds that factually have no basis or the event was so over exaggerated that the truth is lost. It is sad to see the lack of willingness on both sides of this issue to seek out the truth. We have become a people that willingly accept as truth most anything we agree with and provided it is in written published form. These become our experts and we take what they say as fact without ever investigating the issues ourselves to truly understand the issue or the truth. It is truly a sad day within the church when everyone decided to allow someone else to do their thinking and rewrite their history. EdB |