Why are they now considered inspired? Jerome did not considered them inspired. In fact he wanted to leave them out. For over 1500 years they were not considered inspired. They were considered good spiritual reading but not inspired by God. Why consider them canon now?
2007-11-04 06:43:31 · 10 answers · asked by Bible warrior 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Allan C - They were declared canon at the council of trent in response to the reformation.
2007-11-04 06:52:34 · update #1
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).
2007-11-04 06:55:57 · update #2
cynical - I know of no protestant that considers the apocrypha inspired. Jerome who was tasked with translating the Bible did not want to include them. He did not consider them inspired or canon.
2007-11-04 06:57:17 · update #3
Vicarius Christi - The council of trent made them into canon. They were not considered canon until then.
2007-11-04 07:10:18 · update #4
I didn't know they were! They are good books to show history but they are not God breathed. I can't see anyone trying to change this and get away with it, personally. GOD BLESS!!
2007-11-04 06:49:43 · answer #1 · answered by Allan C 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Church always considered them to be canon, whether or not any council made a formal decision. Until the Protestant Reformation, there would have no reason to bother with it.
There are some Protestant churches which do use them, but not many. I'm not sure which ones, but they do exist. Many more churches have never made a moral statement about the books even though they may not use them.
The Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian churches also consider them to be canon, as well as some other books. The Russian Orthodox Church accepts I & II Esdras as canon. The Ethipoian Church even adds the Book of Enoch.
2007-11-04 15:01:30 · answer #2 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These spurious and uncanonical writings were declared part of the Bible canon by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical.
While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus said "Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.” He showed that he was aware of these apocyphal books but did not acknowledge them as part of the Bible canon.
2007-11-04 15:00:14 · answer #3 · answered by babydoll 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not according to the Pharisees. They declared in 70AD, at the council of Jamina, that to be inspired by God, scripture had to meet the following criteria:
1.) Written in Israel
2.) Written in Hebrew
3.) Written before 250 BC
They didn't like the new Christian movement, and the Christians were drawing from some of the "apocrypha" to support the role of Jesus as Messiah. What better way to discredit scripture than to claim it wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2007-11-04 14:49:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no apocrypha. Luther just found a fancy way to explain why he took out 7 books of the Bible. You can see the proof now that many Protestants considered them 'inspired'. First they were unworthy of being in the bible, now they are inspired? This just shows the inconsistencies in Christianity.
2007-11-04 14:55:14 · answer #5 · answered by cynical 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Some apocrypha is such as the Book of Enoch, which Jude quoted in verse 14, and 15.
2007-11-04 14:48:28 · answer #6 · answered by ? and ?: The Light of the World 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Since books have been written Canons have changed. If you check the History of Religion, Canons have changed more frequently than an army.
2007-11-04 14:56:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Can you cite your claim that Jerome didn't consider them "inspired." Also in the bible Jesus quotes the apocrypha a lot, if he didn't think they were inspired why bother quoting them? Here's a star.
2007-11-04 14:52:16 · answer #8 · answered by STAR POWER=) 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Asker, are you saying that The New Jerusalem Bible is not an inspired Holy Bible? E-mail me.
2007-11-04 15:42:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To continue to frighten people. The apocrypha can be very frightening particularly to those who are impressionable. I was terrified of them at one point in my life. It also keeps people from taking responsibility for the world around them. 'There's nothing I can do about it, it's a sign of the times'. I don't think it has had a good impact on religion in general. Just my thoughts.
2007-11-04 14:48:45 · answer #10 · answered by Yogini 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋