One of the Big Differences between Roman Catholicism and the various Protestant Churches is a matter of Canon: Several Books in RC are apocryphal in Protestantism (i.e. Macabees)
By what criteria did the various Protestant ecclesiastical councils find these books Non-Canon, whereas for over a thousand years previous they were okay?
The books you’re referring to are also termed ‘deuterocanonical’. ‘Apocrypha’ should, I think, prperly refer to stuff like the Infancy Gospel of James that were never included in any version of the Bible (at least, by the common tradition that Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants share: various other Christian groups had their own sacred writings.)
The deuterocanonical books that you’re talking about are included in the Greek version of the Old Testament, but not in the Hebrew, and as far as I know date from somewhat later than the rest of the Old Testament. They are not included in the Jewish Bible, and when he decided to produce his own translation, Luther referred to the Jewish cannon to decide which books he should include in the Old Testament. (Anglicanism takes an intermediate view on the deuterocanonical books, and they’re included in the Anglican lectionary for purposes of readings and such).
The works concerned had been included in the Septuagint, the Greek-language scriptures which the early Christian movement inherited from Judaism. However they hadn’t orginally been composed in Hebrew, and at the time of or not too long after the Christian/Jewish split, with the emergence of Rabbinical Judaism there was a renewed focus on the Hebrew Scriptures, and the apocrypha/deuterocanonical works ceased to be generally regarded as scriptural among Jews. So Luther was faced with a Christian Old Testament inherited from Judaism, parts of which Jews themselves did not regard as scriptural. Part of his “returning to scriptural roots” movement involved dropping, or at least downgrading, those parts.
Maybe so, but that’s not how the term has been used historically (as I understand it, and Wikipedia seems to agree).
Depends on who gets to write the history!
The word comes from the Greek, and indicates a text of doubtful authenticity or uncertain authorship. Obviously Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Christians, all of whom regard these particular texts as canonical, have never included them in the apocrypha, or used that term to refer to them; Jews and Protestant Christians have done. The “neutral” term which is used in interdenominational dialogue where general goodwill prevails is “deuterocanonical”.
If you go to a good bookstore and look around for a collection of Gnostic and/or ‘alternative’ early Christian texts, you’ll probably find them labeled ‘apocrypha’ as well. The term is used both for deuterocanonical works like Maccabees, and for more, um, unorthodox works like the “Secret Supper of John” (as well as, thirdly, for fully orthodox books like “Infancy Gospel” which never happened to be included in the bible). The term is confusing because of its multiple meanings, which is why I suggest using the Catholic term ‘deuterocanon’ for books like Sirach, Esdras, Maccabees and so forth. I’m not a catholic, but the term is at least more specific.
This site, for example, includes book like Infancy Gospel of James under the title ‘apocrypha’.
As this is a factual question with no overtones of witnessing, I am moving it to General Questions.
I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that the deuterocanonical books were “OK” for over 1000 years. Actually, they were heavily disputed, accepted by some church authorities and rejected by others. Some rejected them as being canonical (i.e., inspired Scripture), but were willing to allow them to be read in churches as devotional material.
The books were finally ratified by the Roman Catholic Church as being fully canonical at the council of Trent in 1546. This council functioned mainly as a counter-Reformational event. The Reformers had rejected the Apocrypha from their Bibles, so the RCC moved to make the books fully canonical as a reaction to that.
Numerous other Protestant doctrines were also explicitly anathematized at Trent, including the idea that salvation was by God’s grace through faith in Christ, without the necessity of added works (what most Protestants consider the heart of the Gospel). The RCC, of course, has held that both sacramental works (baptism, communion, etc.) as well as more general “good deeds” contribute to salvation. This addresses one of the very foundational controversies between the Reformers and the RCC - is salvation exclusively a work of God, or does man somehow contribute something to his salvation?
FWIW, Rev. Lovejoy has lectured from the Apocrypha on the Simposns, and he’s Presbylutheran.
So was everyone else in the protestant movement following Luther’s lead - “hey, that’s a good idea, let’s stick it to the pope that way too”? Was the rejection of the deu/apo books more of a general “back to the roots, stick to the pure” movement that occurred to everyone about the same time… “since we’re cleaning the canonical house anyway, let’s throw away these questionable books”?
I would mention that the concept of purgatory is based on Maccabees. Accepting it as canonical is tantamount to accept the idea of a purgatory too.
As an aside, many Protestant churches (including the Lutherans[sup]*[/sup]) have now accepted, or mostly accepted, the Catholic lectionary. That is to say: If you attend a Catholic mass, they’ll read passages from two non-Gospel books (usually one each Old and New Testament) and one Gospel. Go to any Catholic church, and you’ll get the same selection of readings (possibly edited for length) on any given Sunday. But you’ll also get those same three readings in many Protestant churches.
I don’t know what these Protestant churches do when the Catholic lectionary includes a deuterocanonical book. Presumably, the Anglicans go ahead and use them, and other sects that don’t instead just pick some other passage on their own.
Not really. Accepting Maccabees and that particular interpretation of it is tantamount to accepting purgatory, but that’s like the old saying “That and a quarter will get you a phone call”. The relevant passage in Maccabees is one calling for people to pray for the dead. The interpretation that leads from there to Purgatory is that, once people reach Heaven they no longer need prayers, and once they reach Hell they’re beyond help, so prayer can only benefit those in some intermediate state. But I’ve never heard of any Protestant hesitating to pray for the dead, regardless of their acceptance or lack thereof of Maccabees or Purgatory. Obviously they interpret such prayer differently.
Maccabees, except for perhaps the most conservative, is part of the Jewish “culture”. I use culture instead of religion specificially. Hanukkah comes from the story and has gone from a minor holiday to having greater stature these days.
This is what Protestants use. I know in United Methodist churches it’s commonly but not universally followed. It’s also common to pick and choose, using just one or two of the prescribed reading, or using it when the pastor doesn’t have a different passage picked out for some reason. Very few do the full set of readings, which as I recall includes a Psalm as well. One (whichever is the topic for the sermon) or two (one OT and one NT) were most common in my experience.
No, the books were generally not accepted by the main of the Catholic church as ‘canonical’ until said Council of Trent. If you must make an interpretation, it would be that the CT said “hey, that’s a good idea, let’s stick it to the Protestants (yes, I know all about the Council of Speir [sp]”).
Yes. But you can also cite proof texts from Luke and Matthew in favour of purgatory , and you can believe in Purgatory (or the near equivalent) without having to rely on Maccabees. The ‘verily, you shall not get out until you have paid the last farthing’ passage in the gospels, if it’s interpreted in terms of the afterlife (and I think it should be) is clearly suggestive of some kind of state of temporary, limited suffering.
To be completely fair, Catholic churches sometimes swap out one of the standard readings, for various reasons. We don’t do it as often as Protestants, of course, but then, we’re pretty big on the whole hierarchical rules-from-above thing.
Hmmm…I can’t understand how or why someone would pray for the dead if they’re already assigned to heaven or hell. It makes no sense to me, and the purgatory interpretation (or something similar) seemed pretty straightforward to me based on this passage.
So, why would a protestant pray for the dead? I didn’t know that they did that.
Some people believe that, since God is outside time, there’s no contradiction involved in praying about/for something that has already happened but for which they do not know the outcome.