PDA

View Full Version : Question about the Deuterocanonical books



ChristianKnight
Dec 25th 2008, 10:31 AM
Why aren't they a part of the KJV?

Where they added to the bible (after let's say the others were) or where they take out by Luther?

th1bill
Dec 25th 2008, 04:15 PM
Why aren't they a part of the KJV?

Where they added to the bible (after let's say the others were) or where they take out by Luther?
... If my memory serves me well the Old Testament Canon was serviced before those books were written and when the Christian Church (not the Catholics) serviced the New Testament Canon these books were examined closely and reject because they are at odds with both the Old and the New Testaments. For the well grounded Christian and for the Jew of today they are profitable as history books, covering the years of silence by our LORD.

ChristianKnight
Dec 25th 2008, 04:30 PM
... If my memory serves me well the Old Testament Canon was serviced before those books were written and when the Christian Church (not the Catholics) serviced the New Testament Canon these books were examined closely and reject because they are at odds with both the Old and the New Testaments. For the well grounded Christian and for the Jew of today they are profitable as history books, covering the years of silence by our LORD.


So, their was a Christian Church before a Catholic Church?

Was Peter it's first leader or what?

You've got me interested btw

Bethany67
Dec 25th 2008, 06:53 PM
If I recall correctly, the Deuterocanonical books are not listed in Josephus (Jerusalem/Rome) or Philo (Alexandria), which implies they were not in common usage by the Jews of that time. Re the OT canon, there was a possible Council of Jamnia in the first century AD, but scholars are divided on the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Jewish_Bible_canon

grit
Dec 25th 2008, 11:19 PM
The particular apocryphal books which are now included in the Roman Catholic canon (as distinct from other Christian canons and other apocryphal books), were presented in the original 1611 KJV as of separate consideration from the Old and New Testaments of Scripture, and placed in a separate section between the Testaments of Scripture.

English Protestants generally did not view these apocryphal books as Scripture, and so including these books in most KJVs quickly waned because of the extra expense of publishing them together with those books held as Scripture.

Martin Luther died in 1546, long before the KJV was published.

Not all of the apocryphal books earlier perhaps held as Scripture in some Christian quarters and included in various manuscripts of the Bible are even included in the Roman Catholic canon, Eastern Orthodox canon, Coptic canon, or other canons of officially recognized Christian communions.

Toymom
Dec 26th 2008, 05:55 AM
i like this site: http://www.bibledudes.com/bible/canon.php


There arose a widespread belief within Judaism by the second century BCE that biblical prophecy and revelation began with Moses in about 1250 BCE and ended with Ezra about 800 years later. But the Apocryphal writings were formulated centuries after Ezra, even though many Apocryphal writings are attributed to earlier people, including Ezra himself. That is to say that someone long after Ezra wrote a book and said it was by Ezra. So, while a few scholars still hold that the Apocryphal books were actually written by the people named in their titles, the vast majority of scholars believe that many Apocryphal writings are pseudepigraphal.

Pseudepigraphal, based on the Greek words pseudo- "falsely" and epigraphein "to write upon." This isn't to say necessarily that the writings are false, just their claims at authorship. For example, in the Apocrypha there is a letter that says it was written by the biblical prophet Jeremiah, but we know from the language that it was written at least 500 years after Jeremiah died. It was common in antiquity to attribute writings to famous people who lived in earlier time periods.
http://www.bibledudes.com/apocrypha/

th1bill
Dec 26th 2008, 06:45 PM
So, their was a Christian Church before a Catholic Church?

Was Peter it's first leader or what?

You've got me interested btw
... You will need to start with Acts 11:26 and of course if you study Paul you will find that Paul, Barnabas, Peter, Mark and others were busy planting Churches long before the Church in Rome had any power. The Council in Trent in the 300's did no more than to ratify the, already existing, Canon of the New Scripture. The best thing I can suggest is to read some books of Church History that provide complete bibliographies so that you can trace the origin of the references. It has been about fifteen years since it has been a subject of interest to me and I hope that someone more current will pop in here to assist you with the study, my pastor had all the books I needed when I did my study.