I can not speak for all of those points since I am not learned enough in the Apocrypha but a few I have to disagree with...
Point 1.. Agreed, that they are not included in the Hebrew Text, but the Masoretic Text is only dated after the birth of Christ when the Septuagint which contain the the apocrypha is dated before the birth of Christ... The Septuagint seems to be older... Plus the Dead Sea Scrolls is older then the Septuagint and is in Hebrew and they contain the Apocrypha...
Point 2.. Some do lay claim to be inspired with such as "Thus saith the Lord" "The Lord saith", etc...
Point 3.. The Jews after Christ may have never acknowledged them but there seems to be a prophecy in 2nd Esdras that seem to prophecy the name of Christ and that he would die for his people in 400 years... Maybe the Jews after the Jamia Counsel did not want to acknowledge Christ? But either way, it is an argument from silent on this point....
Point 4.. Many if not most of the early church fathers acknowledge and quoted from the Apocrypha before Jerome ever questioned them which he only askerick them as uncertain.... Even after Jerome Augustine seem to champion them which is why I asked the question in the first place....
Point 5, 6, 7, I am uncertain about.... But are they instructive or historical narrative? are they catholic interpretation or even other false interpretation? example would be the prayers for the dead which in 2nd Maccabees seem to be a historical narrative of what they did and not a command from God to pray for the dead.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot  Alexander McClure, The Translators Revived, pp. 185-186: Quote:
The sixth and last company of King James's Bible-translators met at Cambridge. To this company was assigned all the Apocryphal books, which, in those times, were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture.*
*The reasons assigned for not admitting the apocryphal books into the canon or list of inspired Scriptures are briefly the following. 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of tile Old Testament. 2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration, t. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures bv the lewish Church, and therefore were never semctioned by our Lord. 4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of tile Christian Church. 5. They contain fabulous statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in tile two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as ancient documents, illustrative of the mmmers, language, opinions and history of the East.)
Still this party of the Translators had as much to do as either of the others, in the repeated revision of the version of the canonical books.
| |