books banned from the bible

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ScribeD on November 12, 2010 at 9:42pm

DV: this is great stuff. Thanks for sharing. It shows how that God has brought humanity just what we needed at each stage of history.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 12, 2010 at 9:43pm

SOLA SCRIPTURA: The Sufficiency of Scripture
By Dr. Rowland Ward

From The Presbyterian Banner: July, 1996.
The following are notes by Dr. Ward for his debate with
Roman Catholic apologist, Mr Patrick Madrid in June, 1996.

OT Apocrypha

During the period c300 BC-AD 100 various Jewish writings in the Greek language were circulated among the Jews, and are called apocrypha. The circumstances of their origin were unclear, but they were regarded as useful works for catechumans and were also read for edification rather much as certain pious books were commonly owned and used by Protestants of an earlier time (eg. Foxe's Book of Martyrs or Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress). Some of these 14 or 15 writings were bound with copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testament made by the Jews c200 BC, and also circulated in the Christian community. In length they are equal to about 20% of the Old Testament.

Patristic and Medieval period

That there was disagreement about the status of these writings from early times is evident in the literature. In the 4th century, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem and Jerome are among those who rejected them as not part of the canon of faith, the latter expressly stating that the Church reads these books 'for example and instruction of manners' but does not 'apply them to establish any doctrine.' Augustine accepted them as did certain local councils (Rome AD 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397). John of Damascus (675-749), rejected them and is followed by the Larger Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox of 1839. What we can say is that they were canon for edification by all, but not all held them to be canon for faith since not all regarded them as Scripture. But to cut a long story short, what was characteristic of the Middle Ages was, as R. A. Muller says, 'the affirmation of the infallible and sufficient character of Scripture in the context of a rather loosely defined canon'.[2]

Sixteenth Century

In 1546 the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, which had only about 50 bishops in attendance for the debate, a majority being Franciscans, accepted by majority vote most of the apocryphal books, declaring them to be part of Holy Scripture, equally to be venerated and in all their parts. Trent has been accused, perhaps justly, of being motivated by desire to gain some support for certain practices (eg prayers for the dead, c.f. 2 Macc. 12:45-46), and in general to exalt the authority of the institutional Church. Certain it is that 1546 is the first time a council that purported to be representing the whole church (although the Greeks were not invited and the Protestants were condemned in their absence) defined the canon in an effective way.

Protestant responses

Trent's decree caused refinement in the Protestant statement of the position. Early post-Tridentine Protestant creeds such as the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1562) still regard the Apocrypha as edifying although not to be used to establish any doctrine, which is pretty much the pre-Reformation position.

Whatever historical arguments may be raised, the crucial issue to the Reformers was the lack of the marks of inspiration: there were fables, errors and false teachings in these books so that faith found no foundation in them. Later, the historical argument was more fully developed. In the Westminster Confession (1646) the Apocrypha is specifically stated to be not inspired and therefore of no more authority than other merely human writings, a statement that is certainly one more in line with the internal and external evidence. It represents a distinct advance and yet is not without its antecedents in the Patristic period (eg. Jerome).

I advance points, additional to those listed in connection with the Old Testament, for the sake of completing the argument.

The apocryphal writings are written in Greek not Hebrew.

One of the most useful of the apocryphal books [1 Maccabees] admits that there was no true prophet at the time (c110 BC) - 1 Macc. 14:41 c.f. 9:27, while 2 Maccabees 15:38 reads in a way no prophet wrote: 'If it [my book] is found well written and aptly composed, that is what I myself hoped for; if cheap and mediocre, I could only do my best' c.f. 2:23-27. The preface to Ecclesiasticus shows the author was simply trying to help people understand the Old Testament. Other aspects of the content are inconsistent with Divine authorship.

The apocryphal writings are never quoted as Scripture in the New Testament.

The Jews did not accept the Apocryphal writings as canonical for faith and it is said that a meeting of rabbis at Jamnia c. A.D. 90 formally rejected them.

Use by the church does not prove acceptance as part of the canon of faith. One may note the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the first edition of the Protestant King James Bible (A.V.) of 1611 even though the Church of England (via her Thirty Nine Articles) did not regard the Apocrypha as part of the canon of faith.

How is it possible for an infallible decision to be made declaring certain books inspired and entitled to equal veneration with the undisputed Old and New Testaments when these books contain clear evidence that they are not from God? Trent's decree was a reactionary decision by a hard-pressed and less than well-informed hierarchy, and is out of step with the previous 1400 years of history. The decision was not in accordance with the evidence, let alone did it have 'the unanimous consent of the fathers' such decrees are supposed to be able to appeal to. It is an example of the fact that more than a claim to infallibility is needed to decide a question of historical evidence. It is also an example of the way in which the undoubted authority of the church has been distorted and misapplied.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colby on December 22, 2013 at 10:16am

I missed this program, "The Forbidden Scriptures," which aired on the History Channel.  Michael Kruger, a professor and president of Reformed Theological Seminary, called it "entertaining" and "provocative." Many critics would probably say the same thing about the fictional best-seller "The DaVinci Code."  Overall, Kruger found the History Channel program  "very disappointing" because, he says, "it is simply not historically accurate."  Read more here: 

http://michaeljkruger.com/bible-secrets-revealed-a-response-to-the-....

 

Other articles of interest on this topic.

• “The Difference Between Original Autographs and Original Texts,”;

• “Apocrypha and Canon in Early Christianity,”; and
• The Apocryphal Books of the Catholic Bible.
  
  

David's explanation about the Apocrypha is helpful, too, and provides much needed context.  These books are accepted as Scripture by only the Catholic and Orthodox churches.  

The History Channel documentary apparently mentions other so-called  "gospels," which are far more controversial and regarded as outlandish because they were never considered authoritative by early Christians.  They were and still are not considered "credible" because their accounts and teachings are contrary to (at worst) or questionable (at best) in light of the panoply of Scripture.  Such writings were not "banned" or "removed" from the Bible; they were never seriously considered for inclusion in the first place.  

 

Needless to say, the Bible itself tells us that many like to have their ears "tickled" by false teachings and will find themselves tossed about to and fro by them like a boat on rough seas.  The claims that such questionable "gospels" make have persisted for centuries and will continue to make the rounds, though reputable biblical scholars have thoroughly discredited them.  The best way for us to be able to distinguish between the truth and deceptive false teachings is (as always) for us to dig deep into the Bible to firmly establish a foundation on God's Word and, once we have done that, to evaluate the claims of supposedly "lost" or "banned" alleged "gospel" writings critically against the Scriptures.

 

This topic, in turn, ties into a much a larger question: How did the Bible (as we know it) come to include to 39 books in the OT and 27 books in the NT (for a total of 66) written by many different authors over a period of hundreds of years?  By what process and standard were these writings culled and vetted such that made the "cut" and were included while other writings were rejected?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page