In each of these books was removed from all variations except for a version, which was the first edition translated into English.
He had been the son of David and is alleged to be the cleverest man who has always lived. It appears that Solomon was talking of Jesus.
However, Jesus was born approximately years following his departure. Let us consider why this might be that Solomon was speaking about;. This truly disrupts everything we thought we understood. Solomon really and genuinely seems terrible. Lately, Solomon is a guy engulfed in the occult.
In addition, the decision at Trent has many problems. Rather than accepting the entire fourteen or fifteen books of the Septuagint plus as Holy Scripture they rejected First and Second Esdras which they call Third and Fourth Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. It is interesting to note that Second Esdras, or Fourth Esdras in Roman Catholic reckoning, contains a strong objection against prayers for the dead - one of the important doctrines practiced by the Roman Catholic Church at that time.
Second Esdras also limits the Old Testament canon to twenty-four books. This of course, would exclude the Apocrypha. It must also be noted that at the Council of Trent there seems to have been no Hebrew scholars and only a few good Greek scholars. Most scholars believe that the people who lived at the place near the Dead Sea, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, were the Essenes.
Although they were rivals of mainstream Judaism they accepted the same books as Holy Scripture. While it is true that the books of the Apocrypha were found among the scrolls left by this group, they not the only non-canonical books that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The materials found at Qumran were part of a library - they were not merely books of Scripture. While commentaries of the biblical books have been found at Qumran no commentary has thus far been found on the Apocryphal books.
Consequently there is no evidence whatsoever that the Dead Sea Community held the books of the Apocrypha to be divinely inspired. Even if evidence were someday found that showed the Essenes believed the Apocrypha to be divine, this would prove nothing. This group was a sect that was not in the mainstream of Jewish thinking. While some Protestants may find some use of the Apocrypha, such as printing it between the testaments and using it in some measure in public worship, it has never been accepted as Holy Scripture.
The use by Protestants of the Apocrypha has never been to establish doctrine or settle doctrinal issues. The use of the Apocrypha is limited. The Church of England in their Bible readings say the Apocrypha is to be used for example of life, but not to establish any doctrine.
The books commonly called the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha also contains demonstrable historical errors. We can cite a number of examples. I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days of my life. I performed many acts of charity for my kindred and my people who had gone with me in exile to Nineveh in the land of the Assyrians. When I was in my own country, in the land of Israel, while I was still a young man, the whole tribe of my ancestor Naphtali deserted the house of David and Jerusalem.
This city had been chosen from among all the tribes of Israel, where all the tribes of Israel should offer sacrifice and where the temple, the dwelling of God, had been consecrated and established for all generations forever. All my kindred and our ancestral house of Naphtali sacrificed to the calf that King Jeroboam of Israel had erected in Dan and on all the mountains of Galilee Tobit Yet the text says that Tobit was still alive when the Assyrians captured the northern kingdom of Israel in B.
This means that he lived over two hundred years! So ended Tobit's words of praise. Tobit died in peace when he was one hundred twelve years old, and was buried with great honor in Nineveh Tobit ,2. This is an obvious contradiction. Those who believe in an inerrant Scripture cannot accept the Apocrypha as God's Word. It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.
In those days Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana Judith There are two historical errors in this verse. Nebuchadnezzar was the ruler of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians, and he ruled from Babylon, not Nineveh. 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 Apocrypha.
Many of them have demonstrable errors that cannot be reconciled. The content of the books of the Apocrypha is below that of canonical Scripture. When one reads these books alongside canonical Scripture the differences become obvious. The books of the 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. From the documents themselves we find no claim of authority. This is in contrast to the books of the Old Testament that claim to record the words that God spoke and the deeds that He performed among the people. Therefore it is not logical to attribute God's authority to the books of the Apocrypha when they themselves make no claim to divine authority. While the books of the present Old Testament canon were written in Hebrew, with small parts in Aramaic, some of the books of the Apocrypha have no Hebrew original behind them.
They were composed in Greek. These include Susanna, the Letter of Jeremiah, and the additions to Esther. While the Hebrew language is not a determining factor as to what books should be part of the Old Testament canon all of the undisputed books of the Old Testament were composed in Hebrew - none of them were composed in Greek.
Greek did not become the international language till about B. This was about seventy years after the close of the Old Testament. The fact that a number of the books of the Apocrypha were originally written in Greek shows their late date and their lack of claim to be part of the Old Testament. The teaching of the Apocrypha adds nothing new to the faith that God has revealed to humanity. There is nothing in these books that adds to our knowledge of God's character or His plan. At best, they simply repeat what is already revealed in the Old Testament.
Consequently they do not contain any further revelation. It is clear that in the first century the Old Testament was complete. Jesus put His stamp of approval on the books of the Hebrew Old Testament but said nothing concerning the Apocrypha.
However, He did say that the Scriptures were the authoritative Word of God and they could not be broken. Any adding to that which God has revealed is denounced in the strongest of terms. Jesus asked the religious leaders a penetrating question. Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? Matthew Therefore I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation Matthew He mentions Abel and Zechariah as the first and last messengers of God that were murdered. Abel's murder is mentioned in Genesis while Zechariah's was in 2 Chronicles - the last Old Testament book in the Hebrew canonical order. The fact that these two are specifically mentioned is particularly significant.
There are other murders of God's messengers recorded in the Apocrypha. Jesus does not mention them. This strongly suggests He did not consider the books of the Apocrypha as part of Old Testament Scripture as with the books from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. Jesus gave further testimony of the extent of the Old Testament canon in the day of His resurrection.
He said. How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself Luke , Note Jesus' emphasis on "all that the prophets had spoken. He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" Luke This is a reference to the threefold division of the Hebrew Scripture.
They constitute "all that the prophets said. It would not have been part of the threefold division of the Old Testament. As the evidence is examined it becomes clear that the books of the Apocrypha should not be accepted with the same divine authority as the books found in the Hebrew Old Testament.
There is no evidence whatsoever that they belong in Holy Scripture. To the contrary, all the evidence speaks to their exclusion. Because they are not Scripture it is wrong to have them bound in a single volume with Holy Scripture.
Doing so will only mislead believers. The fact that the Apocrypha is not considered to be Holy Scripture does not mean that it is entirely worthless. The books do have some value. For example, the Book of First Maccabees has some valuable historical references about the period between the testaments. However any value these books do have are as historical works - not divinely inspired Scripture.
The Rev. Christopher R. Smith is an an ordained minister, a writer, and a biblical scholar. He was active in parish and student ministry for twenty-five years. He was a consulting editor to the International Bible Society now Biblica for The Books of the Bible, an edition of the New International Version NIV that presents the biblical books according to their natural literary outlines, without chapters and verses.
His Understanding the Books of the Bible study guide series is keyed to this format. He was also a consultant to Tyndale House for the Immerse Bible, an edition of the New Living Translation NLT that similarly presents the Scriptures in their natural literary forms, without chapters and verses or section headings.
He has a B. View all posts by Christopher R Smith. Thank for the work, this will help us on research. May God bless your work, so wonderful to keep all the required information up to date. Could you tell me the order of all the books of the bible if the missing ones were not left out? Are there Gospels that were also left out of the bible and if so why and are they true to the word of God or made up as I have read.
Here is what the order of the books in the Bible would be if the books that I discuss in this post, which Protestants call the Apocrypha and Catholics call the deuterocanonical books, were included. The order would be just the same as in Protestant Bibles except that the books of Tobit and Judith would come before Esther, and 1 and 2 Maccabees would come after Esther; Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach would come after the Song of Solomon; and Baruch would come after Lamentations.
It talks about a different type of afterlife where not everyone goes to heaven or hell and instead, everyone receives punishment for their sins during their lifetime. The book is a reflection of the circumstances involving Jewish exiles in Babylon. In fact, the book is actually written directly to the citizens of Jerusalem with guidelines that they should follow. The book focuses on wisdom and many believe it was written during the period of the Maccabees. Nonetheless, this is one of the most widely accepted pieces of the removed books and it is still present in the Greek Orthodox Bible and the Vulgate Bible which also contains the Letter of Jeremiah.
The origins of the text are obscure and no one knows if they were from the originally composed Hebrew text or if they came from another source. This was chapter 13 in the book of Daniel until it was removed by the Protestant Church.
It is considered an example of proper manners. The story starts with a wife named Susanna who was accused by voyeurs. These men were spying on her while she was bathing and then demand that she have sex with them. She of course refused and they arrest her, claiming that she sent her maids away so she could have sex with a young man under a tree. When she is put to death the young man Daniel shouts out that the two men should be questioned separately to see if their stories align.
The result is that their stories do not align because they each tell the authorities of a different kind of tree where the act occurred.
The two men are then sentenced to death. Here we have another book that was from the book of Daniel. This is chapter 13 and in fact, it never even made it into any version of the Bible. This story was rejected by the Church from the very beginning. It is a single story of Daniel at the court of Cyrus.
The story of Bel denounces the worship of idols and the king tests Daniel by asking him if he thinks Bel is a living God. The king is enraged when Daniel denies Bel and is unimpressed by what the king claims. The king demands that 70 priests show Daniel offerings that will be made to the idol. If he does, Daniel will be sentenced to death. Daniel sprinkles ashes throughout the floor of the temple to find out that the meal was actually consumed by the priests, wives, and children who enter through a secret door when the temple doors are closed.
The next morning the king comes to see that the food was consumed, but Daniel brings his attention to the footprints of varying sizes indicating a large group of people were present.
The priests are arrested, the secret passage is found, and everyone involved is given a death sentence. This 15 verse prayer to King Manasseh of Judah is believed to have been excluded from the Bible because Manasseh is considered one of the most idolatrous kings in the history of the ancient scripture. One primary theory for the exclusion of the Maccabees is the dating of the books. It is assumed that the canon was formulated in Jamnia but much of the information in this book would have taken place long before it was written.
It could mean that the writers inherited some information they were passing along or it could mean scribes of the Old Testament included this information.
It has also been said that the Maccabees are traced back to a political rivalry between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. To pick just one version of the Bible is a difficult task.
0コメント